Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List

The Ghetto Imp writes "According to CNN Money, the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of telemarketing companies, which were claiming that the do-not-call list violated their free speech rights. "

Comments

Short-term memory loss

[Lord Grey]

Now wait just a minute. From the article:

"We hold that the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government's important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech," the [Denver-based] appeals court said.

Emphasis mine.

Is this the same government that instituted the Patriot Act? (I know, some of it was recently declared unconstitutional, but the Act was put in place first.)

It's very nice that privacy is becoming a little more important these days, at least with the state governments, but please don't try to rewrite history.

That said, I'm very happy the do-not-call list will remain. It's cut down my dinner interruptions to almost zero.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[anonymous cowherd (m]

Note that it was the executive and legislative branches that cooperated to pass the USA PATRIOT Act, while the quote is a statement of the judicial branch.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Skater]

I'm pretty sure that comment was meant to be "government's role in general, as defined by the constitution" as opposed to "the current administration". Also, remember the Supreme Court didn't pass the Patriot Act...

--RJ

Re:Short-term memory loss

[TrollBridge]

Of course, it was the same Supreme Court that declared parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. The SC is being VERY consistent here.

The system works. Sometimes it just takes a little more time.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's tempting to believe that we are governed by a monolithic well of power called "The Government" but in fact, "The Government" is an organization of many individuals and departments, with varying levels of competency, conflicting goals, and uneven beneviolence.

Congress, the Attorney General, and the President were the groups responsible for the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court is a different department of government.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, remember the Supreme Court didn't pass the Patriot Act..."

And neither did the current administration. It just signed it.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[lukewarmfusion]

I'm not sure if your post is supposed to be flamebait, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your description of the Patriot Act is fairly accurate. There are some sections that are newer, but the biggest reason why the PA is a "bad thing" is that it largely removes the process of checks and balances for certain things. The recently overturned portion of the Act involved a nearly 30-year-old law dealing with requests for confidential information. The change from that old law was that the FBI no longer needed a court order/warrant/notification of the parties involved. So the FBI was, as the judge put it, performing "self-certification" in order to get this information. No cause, no court, no preponderance of evidence, nothing. The FBI could want it and grant it all in-house. Yes, it's faster. But it gives them more unchecked power.

Not all of the Patriot Act is bad. But that careful reading you suggest will reveal a lot more than a compilation of existing law.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Dhalka226]

but please don't try to rewrite history.

What does a judge saying the government has an interest in protecting privacy have to do with rewriting history? He's not commenting on what they've done--and certainly not on any particular piece of legislation with the possible exception of the one (Do-Not-Call) before him--he's merely stating that the government has an interest in protecting privacy and this bill does so. He's making a legal argument. That's what judges do.

Actually, if you'd put emphasis one word earlier--that is, "advances the government's...," it would have been even clearer. The government (not *ADMINISTRATION* or *CURRENT CONGRESS*) has an interest and this advances it; it helps it. Even if other things osetensibly hurt it.

Oy. The political posturing around here is really becoming too much.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Which section number are you talking about? The only one I'm aware of that's iffy is the delayed notification of a warrant as long as only information is collected and no property or individuals seized. Even in that case, the warrant must be issued by a judge with probable cause and there must be a time limit on notification.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[TykeClone]

The government is interested in having the private sector safeguard privacy - see HIPAA and GLB for banking.

Don't think for a moment that any of that pertains to the government, though.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[lukewarmfusion]

I saw a better writeup, but this is the exact part... if you read the court's decision (PDF), you'll see that there are concerns over the FBI's ability to grant and send NSLs without questioning, challenge, review, or appeal. I understand the intent, but the possibility for abuse was opened a lot wider than the original law.
=====

SEC. 505. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.

(a) TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS- Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director';

(2) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and

(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and

(3) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and

(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

(b) FINANCIAL RECORDS- Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(A)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee'; and

(2) by striking `sought' and all that follows and inserting `sought for foreign counter intelligence purposes to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

(c) CONSUMER REPORTS- Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee' the first place it appears; and

(B) by striking `in writing that' and all that follows through the end and inserting the following: `in writing, that such information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.';

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee' the first place it appears; and

(B) by striking `in writing that' and all that follows through the end and inserting the following: `in writing that such information is sought for the conduct of an auth

Re:Short-term memory loss

[kfg]

Is this the same government that instituted the Patriot Act?

Yes, but more to the point it's the same government that holds itself exempt from the Do-Not-Call list.

KFG

Re:Short-term memory loss

[plague3106]

And neither did the current administration. It just signed it.

The administration's role in passing a bill is defined in the constitution. If the Pres. doesn't sign the bill, nothing becomes of it.. so I'd say that yes the current administration did help pass it, by completing the final action to make it a law.

The supreme court only deals with things after they are put into law, not before. Please try to understand the constitution.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[attam]

competency, conflicting goals, and uneven beneviolence (emphasis mine)

so is this a simple typo on "benevolence," a freudian slip, or a clever play on "beneficial violence?"

Re:Short-term memory loss

[lukewarmfusion]

The Patriot Act does allow search without a warrant. That's the point. The FBI believes it should have the ability to conduct searches, prohibiting any disclosure that the investigation took place or what it concerned, solely upon the approval from a higher-up. The FBI can issue NSLs (National Security Letters) that specify these conditions. They are required to report NSL activity to Congress, but I don't have any details on those reports, their contents, or their frequency. Personally, I think the worst thing about these NSLs is that they bar the recipient from revealing anything about the NSL, the investigation, or the parties involved. Just by contacting a lawyer (in this case, the ACLU), the plaintiff violated the terms of the NSL. I have no idea what the penalties might be for that action. The government did succeed in keeping details of the NSL and this specific case/investigation confidential (so as not to disrupt the ongoing investigation). Again, I definitely see the intent and agree that the government needs these abilities. I don't think the execution or implementation are correct; the Patriot Act is off its mark. Unfortunately, it takes a lawsuit to change it - and how many lawsuits will there be if the NSLs prohibit disclosure?

That law, updated per the Patriot Act as below. Note the lack of language referring to court orders, warrants, probable cause, etc.

"The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may --
(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Re:Short-term memory loss

[RocketScientist]

There is some question as to whether or not it was actually the PATRIOT act that was partially declared unconstitutional. The ACLU says it was, many (the Justice department and several other independent attorneys) say it was another law that was struck down.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[KingAdrock]

If the President does not sign a bill within 10 days of its passage through Congress it becomes law even without his signature. That is unless Congress is adjourned, in which case it is considered a pocket veto and does not become law.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[David Price]

I don't think you can claim the Patriot Act decision last week says anything about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, since the Supreme Court isn't the court that handed that decision down.

The ruling you're probably alluding to, Doe v. Ashcroft , has not yet reached the Supreme Court. The decision reported in the news last week was handed down by Judge Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

If the government chooses to appeal, it must first bring its case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the 2nd Circuit is a geographical division that includes New York.) The loser there can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case - it has thousands of petitions and can only hear a few dozen each term.

If, as in the do-not-call case, the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case (denies cert), the decision of the lower court stands. This shouldn't be read as an affirmative decision of the Court to favor one side of the issue or not, just a deference to the judgment of the circuit courts coupled with an inability to hear every case that goes up.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a spelling error. The cigar really is a cigar.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Skater]

I didn't say it did.

Although the current administration did propose it, I blame all of the Senators and Representatives (including Kerry) that voted for it. Without their support Bush never would've had the opportunity to sign it.

--RJ

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Austerity Empowers]

Time out, I know we're in to government criticism but read your emphasis again. The "government's interests" can be read as "the will of the people". Some things "the people" cannot will, like making protestors go away. I agree sometimes the government acts on the will of an individual in charge, but not always, not even often.

The government has interests in protecting your personal safety, thus we have policemen, traffic laws, etc., preventing you or others from doing any thing that pleases you.

The government has interests in protecting your personal privacy, thus you can't walk in off the street and grab someone's tax return (you can probably get the return with references to the filer blocked out).

I'm all for free speech, but one's freedom ends where my front door begins. I do not have to suffer from someone's freedom of speech, the ruling states this government is allowed to protect me from that, if I want.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[plague3106]

If the President does not sign a bill within 10 days of its passage through Congress it becomes law even without his signature.

That's correct, if he chooses not to veto it either. In this particular case, the President did in fact sign the bill in question, so your point is rather moot.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[plague3106]

So, basically, you call yourself an idiot since you just scapegoated to the most recognizable person you can identify and blame instead of holding all parties involved in that law's stupid passage accountable? Absolutely stupendous of you.

I never said that Congress was not responsible either, I was mearly refuting the claim that the administration had nothing to do with its stupid passage. Try to remember that I was replying to another post...

The Patriot Act passed at a time of national crisis. You would be having a field day if the President had not signed it, because you would be citing how he did not want to defend the nation, did not understand the concern, etc. It's a tactic called badmouthing, where you belittle someone regardless of the choice they make.

Since you're not a mind reader, and doubtful that you know what i am thinking now let alone then, I'll have to inform you that I never thought the Patriot act was a good idea and never supported it. In fact, i think there should be a law against passing laws just after a national crisis, to prevent knee-jerk reactions.

The Act would have not made it to the current administration's desk had it not been for Congress, that being BOTH houses approving it. There is plenty of blame to be aimed at those members of Congress. Blaming the President singularly is another fun tactic you are using, already mentioned as scapegoating.

Again, i never relived congress of responsiblity. They were reckless to be sure, but lets not forget who wrote the bill to begin with...Ashcroft, part of the current administration. Congress didn't read it, and that was exteremly reckless, but Bush & co. wrote and ratified it. As a side note, there's only one house; the other half of congress is the Senate.

Further, if you had read the Constitution and looked at the vote count, unless Bush pocket vetoed (and that only occurs in certain situations involving date of approval by the Congress (iow, likely did not apply to the Patriot Act but I'm not sure on this)) which maynot have been possible, even if he had vetoed the bill, it STILL would have passed because it easily met the 2/3rds majority -had it been revisited after the veto by the Congress-.

Why would he veto a bill that his administration wrote?

From your post i can only assume you're a rabid bush supporter, that will do anything to try and absolve him of his role in this mess even going so far as to ignoring facts. Seems to me like you're the scapegoater..

Re:Short-term memory loss

[nwbvt]

"Is this the same government that instituted the Patriot Act?"

The Denver-based appeals court? Not even close.

You see we in the United States have this thing called the seperation of powers. The legislative branches of the government has the right to write laws and then the courts have the right to strike them down if they violate something stated in the Constitution (and not just if the ACLU doesn't like it).

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, just let him fume and paw at the rushes in peace. Its not fair to pull that logic crap mindgame on him! It's everybody's constitutional right to be a reactionary jackass.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[Le Marteau]

The government has interests in... preventing you or others from doing any thing that pleases you.

I realize you meant "anything you please" but the way you said it was too ironic.

Re:Short-term memory loss

[jcr]

The government exempts itself from a *lot* of laws. Ever hear of a little environmental disaster called the Savannah River Plant? If any private company had done that, somebody'd be doing time.

-jcr

Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it...

[garcia]

The telemarketers argued that the list violated their commercial free-speech rights, that it unfairly did not apply to political and charitable solicitations, and that less restrictive regulations already allow consumers to block unwanted calls.

Well, before the list I was getting several calls a week and now I get none except "personalized messages from the President of the United States"... What regulations existed before that let me get off their list? Telling them I wanted on or off their list (whichever they interpreted as the correct way) or allowing me to have caller ID so that I could see "Unknown" show up and choose not to answer only to have them fill up my answering machine with a partial message?

I do agree that political messages should be disallowed. It would be different if the political messages were from non-profit groups representing a candidate that wasn't using tax dollars to campaign and wasn't bringing in MILLIONS of dollars of donated money to spread his name... I do NOT appreciate a 6pm phone call from "President Bush" where he tells me more of what I don't care to hear. I especially don't appreciate when it runs onto my answering machine messages too. I want to declare all the area outside of my phone line a Free Speech Zone. He's free to spread his message there where I don't have to listen to it.

How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get? Buffalo Wild Wings asks when you order, Best Buy now asks when you buy something, we all know and love Shit Shack for what they used to do and probably still do, etc. They are asking for one reason and one reason only... To get your number so that they (and their subsidiaries) can call you even though you're on a DNC list. It's a fucking scam plain and simple. There's no reason to even bother with DNC legislation if we are going to allow gaping holes to exist to trick the population into handing over the information the scam artists need. If our government is really concerned with "protecting us from evil" they can start right fucking there.

Keep the god damn phone lines for opt-in calls only after all that's REALLY protecting my privacy right?

*unplugs phone*

[Kumorigoe]

Violation of free speech? Excuse me? They think that they have a RIGHT to interrupt my dinner, sex life, or gaming? Or, even more importantly, Slashdotting? I THINK NOT

Re:*unplugs phone*

[fitten]

I agree with you, but I also like to add that while they *do* have a right to free speech, I also have the right to not listen (or not want to listen) and not place myself somewhere where their "free speech" is going on. This is even before we get into the topic of a telemarketer calling me on *my* phone to interrupt whatever I'm doing.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[avandesande]

A slashdot poster that has a sex life or eats dinner? Amazing!

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Anonymous Coward]

They think that they have a RIGHT to interrupt my dinner, sex life, or gaming?

If you're snarfing down a package of Ramen noodles while playing UT with the naked chick skin mods, you can get all three activities interrupted by a single phone call.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Funny thing is, people PUBLICALLY list their phone numbers and then wonder why random people call. People spew out their email on the internet and wonder why they get spam.

The truth is, AS INDEVIDUALS we could do a lot more for ourselves to reduce telemarketing and spam. But most of us don't.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Anonymous Coward]

They think that they have a RIGHT to interrupt my dinner, sex life

Yeah. No one has a right to interrupt your tentacle rape masturbation session.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Anonymous Coward]

People that answer their phones are idiots who deserve what they get.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Anonymous Coward]

Violation of free speech? Excuse me? They think that they have a RIGHT to interrupt my dinner, sex life, or gaming? Or, even more importantly, Slashdotting? I THINK NOT

*unplugs phone*

@!#$!^%*&^*^#^ NO CARRIER

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Anonymous Coward]

A slashdot poster that has a sex life

It is hard to answer the phone while your "phone answering" hand is busy. And yes; I know this by experience.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[tompaulco]

Because it costs $2 extra a month to have an unlisted phone number. Why don't they just tax telemarketers to make up that $2? Why should I have to pay money to keep people from bothering me?
Then again, I am one of those strange people that thinks that I should be able to leave my house unlocked and nobody would come in and steal anything. I also don't think that wearing a slutty outfit means you should get raped.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[GMFTatsujin]

To sum up, then:

Right to Free Speech != Right to be Heard.

Say what you like. The intended audience is in no way obliged to care, or even to attend you.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[nwbvt]

No, what they were arguing was that by excluding certain groups from the ban (such as charities and political groups) the ban is effectively endorsing some speech while regulating other speech based on its content, which is arguably a violation of the 1st ammendment. Had Congress merely been willing to ban charities and political groups as well, we wouldn't have to deal with all this legal stuff surrounding the list.

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Selanit]

Violation of free speech? Excuse me? They think that they have a RIGHT to interrupt my dinner, sex life, or gaming? Or, even more importantly, Slashdotting? I THINK NOT

This was never a problem when we were all still on dial-up. Ah, the good old days . . .

Re:*unplugs phone*

[Xaoswolf]

Paris, that you?

I thought that after the last fiasco, you'd stop answering the phone during sex...

Re:FP!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in a dark place. Everyone is laughing at your FP failure. You are likely to be eaten a grue.

Victory, for now

[H_Fisher]

Excellent move on the part of the Supreme Court - this decision, moreso than a lot of recent ones, seems to reflect the wishes of the majority of the American people.

Now I wonder how long it will take before the majority of Americans have as well-formed an opinion, or as loud a collective voice, on issues like copyright and fair use of music, movies, software, etc. I fear it'll take as much in-your-face annoyance as telemarketers produced before anything really gets done (and maybe not even then, if corporate greed has anything to say about it...)

Re:Victory, for now

[servognome]

Excellent move on the part of the Supreme Court - this decision, moreso than a lot of recent ones, seems to reflect the wishes of the majority of the American people
The Supreme court isn't supposed to reflect the wishes of the majority of the American people. That is what the legislative and executive branches are for. The Supreme court is charged with ensuring the other branches remain within the boundaries of the law. Historically, it has also served to resist "mobocracy" by protecting the minority from the wishes of the majority.

Re:Victory, for now

[Anonymous Coward]

More specifically the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the other branches remain within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Whilst the free speech argument works for a while-

[ProudClod]

Cold calling is, in my mind, the equivalent of trespassing onto my property in order to say what I may or may not find useful (mostly the latter). It's an invasion of privacy rather than a free speech issue.

Frankly, I welcome this addition to the US law - we've had a similar system to it over here in the UK for some time, and it really does work.

Free speech?

[neuro.slug]

The telemarketers argued that the list violated their commercial free-speech rights, that it unfairly did not apply to political and charitable solicitations, and that less restrictive regulations already allow consumers to block unwanted calls.

Right to make money through badgering salespeople desparate for commission. Honestly, it's sad how abusive corporate America will be to earn that extra dollar. No consideration whatsoever.

-- n

Re:Free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

That problem is the "corporate America earning that extra dollar" is what enabled individuals to earn those extra dollars. There's this bizarro world concept that there's a few people building up a pile of cash somewhere so they can roll in it and laugh evilly.

Re:Free speech?

[neuro.slug]

Yes, thank God that companies like McDonald's and Wal-Mart pay employees the *liveable* wage of $6.75/hour (let's hope they don't raise it even higher!) while the CEOs wipe their asses with silk towelettes. The distribution of wealth is sickening.

-- n

Exactly where...

[Anita Coney]

... does the US Constitution give corporations the right to force people to listen to sales pitches against their will?!

We have a right to speak, but NO one has any obligation to listen!

Re:Exactly where...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly where between choosing to answer the phone and choosing to hang up did you get forced to listen to anything?

Re:Exactly where...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No, but I do consider it an intrude into and interrupto my personal life. While I can chose when to retrieve my email and my packages, I can't chose when people will call me. When I get calls I didn't ask for from companies that I did not give my phone number to, it is generally for something I don't want and it takes away from my time and energy to respond to it. I say this especially because many people might be expecting a particular call they wanted and dash to the phone from the shower, possibly wet and half naked only to find it is an unwanted peddler.

I say this legislation allows telephones to remain a convenience and not a nuisance.

Re:Exactly where...

[Anita Coney]

I'm forced to get off my butt, to get out of the shower, to run back into the house and hear someone say, "Buy what I'm selling" even after I notified them that I do not want them to call.

If you truly agree with your opinion, PLEASE give me your phone number so I can discuss it with you in person. You are free to hang up if I choose to call you during dinner, when you're watching TV, or when you're sleeping.

Re:Exactly where...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the phone rang.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

The fact of the matter is you're still exaggerating your point. Telemarketers don't force you to pick up the phone. They don't even force you to have a phone in the first place.

I do support these laws, because I think freedom of speech has to be balanced against the right to be free from harassment, especially harassment in one's own home. The key, in my opinion, is that people have to explicitly request to be on the no-call list. If Congress had passed a law saying that all telemarketing was illegal, or even all unsolicited telemarketing, that would infringe on free speech, in my opinion.

Re:Exactly where...

[Anita Coney]

The only way I know whether a call is legitimate or a telemarketer is by answering it. If I accept your argument, I might as well turn my ringer off, which kind of defeats half the purpose of having a phone.

And secondly, you obviously do NOT believe in your argument because you refuse to give me your home phone number. You can't have it both ways. If telemarketers have the right to call me, then I have the right to call you. Either give me your phone number or shut up.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

The only way I know whether a call is legitimate or a telemarketer is by answering it.

You should get caller ID. Either way, not knowing whether a call is legitimate or not still doesn't force you to answer it.

If I accept your argument, I might as well turn my ringer off, which kind of defeats half the purpose of having a phone.

At least you still have the other half.

And secondly, you obviously do NOT believe in your argument because you refuse to give me your home phone number.

I don't think you understand what my argument is. I've never argued that everyone should give their phone number to anyone who asks for it.

You can't have it both ways. If telemarketers have the right to call me, then I have the right to call you.

I never said telemarketers have the right to call you. Read my post again.

Either give me your phone number or shut up.

Read my post again. Then you'll see that you're the one who should shut up.

Re:Exactly where...

[Steve B]

If Congress had passed a law saying that all telemarketing was illegal, or even all unsolicited telemarketing, that would infringe on free speech, in my opinion.

However, a law based on the opt-in standard (telemarketers can only call people who have put their name on a "DO CALL" list) would be perfectly constitutional (and IMO preferable).

Re:Exactly where...

[3terrabyte]

He is not exaggerating the point at all. 20 out of 21 phone calls to my house were telemarketers. I couldn't answer the phone. I had to screen each one. Wait to see who it was, and then and only then talk to my family or friends. These all wasted my time. We tried turning off the ringer. Turned out we missed family calls by up to a whole day. Getting caller ID doesn't help any. And it costs $2/month to be unlisted, which only helps a little. Why do I have to spend so much money to make one of my utitilies more useful? And the government has certainly defined it as an important utility. You need it for emergencies, and countless other reasons depending on your situation.

I don't have people bothering me through my gas main when I try to heat my house in the winter. Why do I have people bothering me on a utility I use to keep in touch with my family?

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

However, a law based on the opt-in standard (telemarketers can only call people who have put their name on a "DO CALL" list) would be perfectly constitutional (and IMO preferable).

I don't think that would be constitutional. I think it would be too much of a hinderance on free speech. It would be like saying that no cable television show could have nudity unless all the subscribers put their name on a "WANT NUDITY" list.

Re:Exactly where...

[Anita Coney]

Do you even have a phone?! The vast majority of phone solicitors get around caller ID quite easily. And secondly, there is no way in heck that I'm going to pay for a phone and get only half the use out of it.

Your argument is that people should not be able to decide if they don't want commercial calls. That's exactly what the list is, people deciding to place their number on a list which retailers are not supposed to call.

You also argue that when faced with phone solicitations, people can either stop taking all calls or simply hang up.

Right now you are deciding that you don't want me to call, that's why you are not giving out your number. And I'm not sure why, as you are well within your rights to not answer you phone or to simply hang up when I call. Please explain how this is different? Why do phone solicitors have more rights than me?!

Here is an analogy. I've seen for sale a device you can connect to your phone to which blocks unwanted calls. It's sort of like an answering machine. Here is how it works: when someone calls, the device answers the call for you. Only after the caller enters a password would the phone actually ring. Thus, someone who used the device could effectively block calls from all solicitors.

Do you think this product is also violative of a businesses' right to commercial speech?

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

I fail to see where any of what you said implies that telemarketers force you to listen. This is the same argument used by the radio censors. Howard Stern forces my kids to listen to fart noises. It's nonsense.

Re:Exactly where...

[Steve B]

I don't think that would be constitutional. I think it would be too much of a hinderance on free speech. It would be like saying that no cable television show could have nudity unless all the subscribers put their name on a "WANT NUDITY" list.

The two cases are fundamentally different. Junk television programs are incapable of creating a nuisance unless you take a deliberate action (turn on the TV and tune in that channel); junk phone calls are capable of creating a nuisance without any such action on your part (indeed, the only way to avoid the nuisance is to disconnect the phone, which simply creates a different nuisance of being unable to receive legitimate calls).

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

Do you even have a phone?!

Not a home phone.

The vast majority of phone solicitors get around caller ID quite easily.

I've never seen a telemarketer who can pop up the number of someone I want to hear from.

And secondly, there is no way in heck that I'm going to pay for a phone and get only half the use out of it.

That's fine. Set up your phone to make an annoying ringing noise whenever some random person wants to reach you. You've got that right.

Your argument is that people should not be able to decide if they don't want commercial calls.

No it isn't.

That's exactly what the list is, people deciding to place their number on a list which retailers are not supposed to call.

You didn't read my post, did you? I think the do-not-call list is a good idea.

You also argue that when faced with phone solicitations, people can either stop taking all calls or simply hang up.

Of course they can.

Right now you are deciding that you don't want me to call, that's why you are not giving out your number.

Actually, I don't care if you call me. I'm mainly just paranoid that you could get my address through my phone number, and I've taken a lot of steps to keep my address very difficult to figure out.

And I'm not sure why, as you are well within your rights to not answer you phone or to simply hang up when I call.

Also, you asked for my home phone number, and I don't have a home phone. I use a cell phone for all my calls.

Why do phone solicitors have more rights than me?!

I don't give phone solicitors my number either. And you have every right to call me. I never said you didn't.

Here is an analogy. I've seen for sale a device you can connect to your phone to which blocks unwanted calls. It's sort of like an answering machine. Here is how it works: when someone calls, the device answers the call for you. Only after the caller enters a password would the phone actually ring. Thus, someone who used the device could effectively block calls from all solicitors.

Do you think this product is also violative of a businesses' right to commercial speech?

No, I don't.

Re:Exactly where...

[tompaulco]

Uh huh? And where might this "WANT NUDITY" list be found?

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

The two cases are fundamentally different. Junk television programs are incapable of creating a nuisance unless you take a deliberate action (turn on the TV and tune in that channel); junk phone calls are capable of creating a nuisance without any such action on your part

Turn on the TV and tune in that channel as opposed to plug in the phone and turn on your ringer? I don't see a fundamental difference.

(indeed, the only way to avoid the nuisance is to disconnect the phone, which simply creates a different nuisance of being unable to receive legitimate calls)

Likewise, disconnecting your TV is generally a bigger nuisance than watching nudity.

Who am I kidding, nudity isn't a nuisance! But I can see how some people would consider it to be.

Re:Exactly where...

[Anita Coney]

"I've never seen a telemarketer who can pop up the number of someone I want to hear from."

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a phone. What if a friend from decades past tried to call me. She has a new last name because she's married. I want to be able to answer that call without being harassed by a phone solicitor.

"No, I don't."

Can you explain how the list violates commercial speech but yet the machine does not? You seem inconsistent in your belief.

On last comment, the right to commercial speech is limited. At one time it was completely non-existent. You seem to be under the impression that commercial speech and the speech of citizens are somehow synonymous. They are not. The government has full legal authority to regulate commercial speech. That is exactly why the list does not apply to political or non-profit groups.

Re:Exactly where...

[Steve B]

Er, nope. The fact that one TV channel has stuff you don't want to see does not prevent your from seeing stuff you do want to see on another channel. However, turning off the phone to avoid telemarketers does prevent you from receiving legitimate calls. As I said, the two cases are fundamentally different, and your analogy is therefore worthless.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a phone.

A phone has many purposes. Personally I don't choose to use the "make an annoying ring whenever some random person dials my number" feature.

What if a friend from decades past tried to call me. She has a new last name because she's married. I want to be able to answer that call without being harassed by a phone solicitor.

She could always leave a message. For me it's not worth it receiving even just the wrong numbers I get to my phone just so my long lost friend who has gotten married and changed her last name can reach me without leaving a message. But if you want the loud annoying ring feature, feel free to use it. Just don't claim that anyone is ''forcing'' you to use it.

Can you explain how the list violates commercial speech but yet the machine does not?

1) I never said the list violates commercial speech. 2) The list is set up by a government law, whereas the machine is set up by a private citizen. 3) etc.

You seem inconsistent in your belief.

You seem to do nothing but set up strawmen.

Re:Exactly where...

[3terrabyte]

"Telemarketers don't force you to pick up the phone"

I know it's hard to keep track of all the shit spewing from your mouth.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

On last comment, the right to commercial speech is limited.

The right to noncommercial speech is limited too.

At one time it was completely non-existent.

Before the Constitution was passed, perhaps.

You seem to be under the impression that commercial speech and the speech of citizens are somehow synonymous. They are not.

Commercial speech is generally made by citizens.

The government has full legal authority to regulate commercial speech.

Of course they don't. Their legal authority is limited by the first amendment. How can you say that commercial speech rights are limited, and then say that they are nonexistent? Pick one.

That is exactly why the list does not apply to political or non-profit groups.

Wrong. The reason the list doesn't apply to political or non-profit groups is because this law is based on the interstate commerce clause.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

The fact that one TV channel has stuff you don't want to see does not prevent your from seeing stuff you do want to see on another channel.

Maybe...

However, turning off the phone to avoid telemarketers does prevent you from receiving legitimate calls.

My phone is set to ring only when people I want to talk to call me.

Re:Exactly where...

[anthony_dipierro]

Let's summarize the thread, then:

We have a right to speak, but NO one has any obligation to listen!

Exactly where between choosing to answer the phone and choosing to hang up did you get forced to listen to anything?

I'm forced to get off my butt, to get out of the shower, to run back into the house and hear someone say, "Buy what I'm selling" even after I notified them that I do not want them to call.

The fact of the matter is you're still exaggerating your point. Telemarketers don't force you to pick up the phone. They don't even force you to have a phone in the first place.

He is not exaggerating the point at all. 20 out of 21 phone calls to my house were telemarketers. I couldn't answer the phone. I had to screen each one.

I fail to see where any of what you said implies that telemarketers force you to listen.

Corporate Free Speech

[TrollBridge]

Score 1 for the good guys! I don't know where the First Amendment guaranteed advertising and intrusive solicitation to corporations, and I'm glad the Supreme Court didn't find it buried in fine print either.

Perhaps this will start a trend of defining (and more importantly, further limiting) this "Corporate Free Speech" assumed and abused by those who believe it is their right to harass us for the sake of profits.

government is actually helping telemarketers

[lawngnome]

I think the do not call list is a great start - it dosent hurt telemarketers because guess what? If I want to get on the list I clearly dont want to hear from them, thus Im not a good prospect. Telemarketers should be thanking the government for putting all the people that dont give a crap about their calls together.

Re:government is actually helping telemarketers

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that! If they have ten thousand numbers to call, and they already know that nine thousand of those will be unreceptive, they've just increased their chance of making a productive call by 1000%. And yet they say it's a bad thing. Go figure.

Re:government is actually helping telemarketers

[karmatic]

The reason they care is because some of their best customers are elderly people who quite literally will buy anything that people try to sell to them. It's sad, but they are out there.

This list lets people remove themselves, without having to stand up to a pushy solicitor.

Re:government is actually helping telemarketers

[anthony_dipierro]

I think the do not call list is a great start - it dosent hurt telemarketers because guess what? If I want to get on the list I clearly dont want to hear from them, thus Im not a good prospect.

Usually the telemarketing company is not the same company that is selling the product. They might make money off commission, but when the number of calls they make goes down, you can bet that this will cause downward pressure on commissions. It'll be good for the company selling the product, but it won't be good for the company doing the telemarketing.

Re:government is actually helping telemarketers

[Steve B]

The dirty secret of telemarketing is that it depends on exploiting people who are highly vulnerable to high-pressure sales tactics (e.g. isolated elderly folks). Sales offers that can stand up on their actual merits can be effectively advertised through less obnoxious means; telemarketing is needed to sell crap that nobody would buy if they had a moment to think it over.

Thus, if people are given the option of taking a one-time action that will block telemarketing (rather than having to resist unwanted sales pitches over and over), telemarketing loses its target audience.

Re:government is actually helping telemarketers

[91degrees]

I'm surprised nobody has ever publically pressured them into admitting this though. What is a good answer (for the telemarketing company) if a judge asks why they're not pleased about the DNC for the reasons mentioned?

Freedom of Quiet Rights

[Ralman]

You can have your free speech all you want, I don't care.

However, I also have the right to not have to listen to what you say, or in this case, are trying to sell.

My choice is to tell you I don't want to hear it. Here I am using my Freedom of Speech (in a nice way) to say "SHUT IT!" by adding my number to the Do Not Call list.

Reuters article

[smooth wombat]

Here is the Reuters link for the entire article: link.

At least this time there is a valid reason for my story being rejected.

from TFA:

[antimatt]

The telemarketers argued that ... less restrictive regulations already allow consumers to block unwanted calls.

In related headlines, robbers worldwide have begun arguing that they don't like it when their victims carry guns.

...

This really seems like an argument from desparation.

Re:from TFA:

[filtur]

In related headlines, robbers worldwide have begun arguing that they don't like it when their victims carry guns.

hmmm... I could imagine telemarketers saying the same thing.

Re:from TFA:

[Anonymous Coward]

But robbers do like when you have a gone in the house in an obvious place like bedstand drawer. This way they don't have to bring in a weapon. They can just shoot you with your own.

Re:from TFA:

[DavidTC]

Yeah, because walking up to sleeping people and rifling through their dresser drawers in the hopes there's a gun there is a well-thought out plan.

It only works about half the time, of course, because often the gun is in the dresser on the other side, but them's the breaks.

Re:from TFA:

[Xaoswolf]

Your analogy is a little wrong...

The gun for a telemarketer would be a telezapper, or what ever you call the things that hang up automatically on telemarketers...

What you should have said was, theives everywhere have begun arguing that they don't like the laws that make it illegal to enter people's homes

They're blocking intrusive advertising

[ShatteredDream]

This is nothing more than the federal government creating telecom equivalent to the state and local laws that let you tell advertisers and sales people to get off your property and to stop bothering you. It's a no brainer that the SCotUS would uphold it.

I'll take my victories where I can, but personally I'd rather be harassed by solicitors than have to live under the USA PATRIOT Act.

Thank God. . .

[twbecker]

I've really become spoiled by the lack of telephone solicitations. I have to say that this is one law the government really did right.

Re:Thank God. . .

[tompaulco]

Lucky you. I still get 5 to 10 calls a day from organizations exempt from this law, which I ALSO don't want to hear from.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get?"

People can ask whatever they want. You have the right not to answer. I have never had anyone refuse to do business with me because I wouldn't give them my phone number.

n4

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is off topic, Radioshack has not (at least in the last ten years) asked for your phone number during the course of a regular sale. The name and address were for receipt lookup and mailers. Phone numbers were only needed for repair service, cell phone service, etc.

Radioshack no longer asks for your personal information. Of course, now people bitch and moan about you not being able to look up their receipt when they want to return something or get in serviced in warranty.

Also, remember... you can always say no.

So?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

How does this help me, with the 5 phone calls a day while I'm waiting to hear back from places I've sent resumes in to?

They start with a recording, often asking me to call a 800 number based offshore. Sometimes a "press 1" to speak to a CSR... which connects me to some sleazy outfit that contracts out the telemarketing, or so they claim. "Sir, we did not call you!". I have an idea. Make telemarketing, for anything (charities too) a crime punishable by prison time. Make it illegal for phone companies to not provide true caller id... not this shit they pass off as the same.

Re:So?

[mog007]

It's impossible to send a corporation to prison, if it were made a criminal action to call someone without their permission. Would you arrest the CEO? The person that made the phone call? The marketing department? The lobbyists that went against the DNC list in the first place? It would be nice for them to spend time in prison along side a spammer and a serial killer, but let's face it, it's impossible to implement.

Re:So?

[Mycroft_514]

>Make it illegal for phone companies to not provide true caller id... not this sh*t they pass off as the same.

There are some places where giving out the caller id can cause harm to the people on the other end. Take people calling from battered woman's shelters. How about people calling their family from witness protection programs?

Now, a telemarketer doesn't rise to that level, but there are some places that have a legitamate use for caller id blocking.

I had such a device for a while. I recieved a threat and added this device to my unlisted number. (Oh, and an unlisted number reduces ALL telemarketing calls to ZERO, even political ones.)

I also got unlisted in the online phone number listings as well. Though with some of them it took some vigalance for a while to make sure I WAS unlisted.

Re:So?

[ajayvb]

c'mon...you know where you've sent your resume (even if you're applying to a lot of co.s in a day...like i was a few months back). Legit people calling you about your resume WILL give their name, their number , their business with you, and will normally leave a normal phone no. to call back (not toll-free ones). Other calls are not worth returning. worked for me.

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

Both those places could easily have some sort of government redirection in operation, even assuming the law wasn't written in such a way to specifically exclude them.

In fact, I'm a little confused. Wouldn't it be better to just have a secure phone number that can't be traced in the first place? That way you could call people in the witness protection system, or at battered women's shelter.

Re:So?

[Mycroft_514]

The battered woman's shelter was an actual example given by a class I took about ANI while an employee of AT&T. Why they do it that way instead of another was not explained.

Keep in Mind...

[Biotech Nerd]

The CNN article is a little misleading. All the Supreme Court did is choose not to review the ruling of the Tenth Circuit. It chooses not to review literally hundreds of circuit court cases each year. The scope of the actual ruling (the Tenth Circuit) is limited to the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. There are 12 other Circuit Courts in the Country (rest of the country), and they can come up with different rulings than the Tenth Circuit, although they will likely consider the Tenth Circuit's holdings in reaching their decisions. If they come up with different results (referred to as a split circuit), then (and only then) would the Supreme Court would likely review the cases (and even that is not certain). So, don't read too much into this.

Re:Keep in Mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

By allowing the lower court's decision to stand, the Supreme Court has settled the issue. Any other court would be going against settled law if they make a contrary ruling on this issue, so while it is possible it is not probable. Of course the telemarkets would probably try to make a slightly different argument any way.

Re:Keep in Mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
Parent's view is correct.

10th Circuit rulings are only law in the 10th Circuit.

Re:Keep in Mind...

[Biotech Nerd]

That's just not correct. It's only settled law in the Tenth circuit. How do you think split circuits (and the cases the Supremes actually grant certiorari on) occur if one circuit doesn't agree with the other?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[the_rev_matt]

It appears that Radio Shack has learned their lesson. Last time I was in there the 'manager' (or that's what it said on his name tag) didn't ask me for anything other than method of payment. It was the best experience I've ever had in one of their stores.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[The Slashdot Guy]

You were only getting several calls a week? We were getting like 15 to 20 a day. The DNC list may not be the greatest thing ever, but it's up there.

If a company asks for your phone number, just say no. If they have no need for it, I'm not giving it up. Hell, I lie when they just ask me for my zip code. Screw them, it's none of their bisiness.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get?

Simple. Don't give it to them. I don't need a law to tell them that they do not need it. I do this with almost any request for private info (Why does my dentist need my driver's license number?)

I don't need the gov't to protect me all the time. It gives them to much power.

Profit through annoying people

[erroneus]

I know I can't be the only one who is simply amazed at the success people have gained through activities that simply annoy most people.

After giving this some careful thought I have been developing a marketting plan that will exploit other things that annoy people as a means of marketting.

Given that many of the most popular foods served in the U.S. often result in halitosis and/or flatulation (which are both annoyances) I have decided to develop this as a marketting scheme that not only benefits the hungry and homeless out there (an important public service) but also spreads the word about any given human consumable food or drink on the market, present and future.

My scheme, known as "Fartketting," consists of hiring low-cost employees and volunteers to consume only the food or drink of any given campaign and then either talk to people about it in close-in, poorly ventilated areas or simply emitting the natural effects of said products either in the form of flatulation or other gastric anomoly. This can be thought of as serving samples to the unsoliciting public.

I believe that if current marketting trends are effective, then this too should be an effective way of spreading the word about products and services to the public.

This method of marketting is currently patent pending, so don't get any wise ideas! This baby is ALL MINE!

Sounds like the RIAA

[jmanforever]

From Article: "The telemarketers argued that the list violated their commercial free-speech rights, that it unfairly did not apply to political and charitable solicitations, and that less restrictive regulations already allow consumers to block unwanted calls."

Someone needs to quit whining, and come up with an alternate business plan.

I also feel that the current "less restrictive regulations" allowing customers to block unwanted calls does NOT work, because the telemarketers always change their calling numbers. When you block one, they will just use another - like spammers.

Next list!

[kkovach]

This is good to hear. Now, all we need is a do-not-use-IE list.

DO-NOT-USE-IE

The damn form doesn't work unless you use IE. Fools!

- Kevin

Re:Next list!

[jmanforever]

"The damn form doesn't work unless you use IE. Fools!"

Well, I must disagree. I just used the link out of YOUR post to register my phone number, and it worked just fine with Firefox 1.0PR running on Win 2K-Pro. I no longer use IE.

Re:Next list!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moz works fine under RH Linux. Are you sure you don't have a proxy filter running?

Re:Next list!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, informative? I registered using LINKS, for crying-out-loud. Can't get much further from IE than that... The page just uses search-engine style URL augmentation to pass arguments; it should be usable from any web browser...

Re:Next list!

[kkovach]

I don't know what's going on. I clicked the Submit link like 4 or 5 times, and it only re-displayed the same form page. I tried it in IE and it worked the first time, continuing to the next page.

- Kevin

Re:Next list!

[bill_mcgonigle]

The damn form doesn't work unless you use IE. Fools!

Hmm, I signed up just fine w/ Mozilla/Mac.

Re:Next list!

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this trash get modded up? This form works fine, no matter what browser you are using. And if parent poster is actually having trouble using the form with their browser, how about telling us which one(s) they are trying to use?

Re:Next list!

[kkovach]

Mod it back down then. I tried it four or five times and could not get it to work. The same initial form kept reloading. Not unlike other sites that only work with IE. I tried it in IE and it worked. I have since gone back to FireFox and it worked.

I appologise. If I could edit my original post, I would. Unfortuantely, I cannot. Coward.

- Kevin

Rights

[SocietyoftheFist]

So why is it even a question about whether or not I have the right to sign up to a list that blocks calls from coming to my house?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[garcia]

Also, remember... you can always say no.

And currently they can deny you the sale as well (which has happened to me at Radio Shack and at restaurants).

When I am asked for my phone number I politely tell them "No thank you." This usually gets a negative response of "sir, I need your phone number to complete the sale." I then again tell them politely that I am not interested in giving out my phone number. Sometimes this will work and they will just cancel it or whatever but at other times it must receive managerial attention which includes them explaining why they need it, etc.

Why don't we just ban the practice outright for the reasons I stated above and be done with it. There is absolutely no fucking reason that Best Buy needs my phone number when I buy something. There is no reason that BW3 needs to know my phone number when I order 12 wings.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[The Snowman]

How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get?

The DNC list definitely makes it possible to opt-in by giving your phone number out and signing a contract (read the fine print). So what I do is give out real numbers that do not belong to me. For example, the police department in Lakewood, Ohio, 44107, is 216-521-1234. Stores all over the east coast have that number in their databases. I list it publically in my Yahoo profile and I think on my web site. I had an old high school friend IM me asking why a policeman picked up the phone when he called me. I am evil :-)

Anyway, as long as companies try to take away my freedom not to be interrupted with spam email, spam paper mail, and spam phone calls, I will exercise my freedom to fuck with their databases.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[The Slashdot Guy]

Business, that is. What's that preview button for, anyway?

"Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List" ... WRONG

[spiritraveller]

FYI, the Supremes did not "back the do-not-call list". They denied cert in the case, which means that they simply refused to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court has held in the past that a denial of cert is not in any way an endorsement of the appeals court's ruling. Only a small fraction of applications for cert are actually granted by the Court.

It is still possible that another lower court (outside of the 10th Circuit) could hold the Do-Not-Call List unconstitutional. Hopefully, any other court would find the 10th Circuit's opinion persuasive... but unless such a court is actually in the 10th Circuit, they are not required to follow the ruling.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[karmatic]

I had GameStop refuse to do business with me if I wouldn't provide a phone number.

I walked out the door.

Any lawyers reading?

[Enlarge Your Penis]

Start phoning the telemarketers at home at inconvenient hours and asking them if they want to hire you to fight this.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[karmatic]

Actually, having a front door is considered an invitation to tresspass, long enough to state your business (unless there is a sign saying no tresspassing).

This is just the equivilant of a No Tresspassing sign, only actually enforced. If only No Tresspassing signs carried as harsh a penalty.

Bullshit. From EPIC

[DAldredge]

The USA PATRIOT Act significantly expanded law enforcement authority to surveill and capture communications. There are three major laws that create the framework for the government interception of communications:

* Title III: Requires probable cause, a high legal standard to meet, from a judge for real-time interception of the content of voice and data communications. See EPIC's Wiretapping Page.
* Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Governs government access to stored email and other electronic communications. Within ECPA, the Pen Register statute governs real time interception of "numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached." Although the use of such devices requires a court order, it does not require probable cause: there is no judicial discretion, and the court must authorize the surveillance upon government certification. A government attorney need only certify to the court that the "information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Therefore, the Pen Register and Trap and Trace statute lacks many of the privacy protections found in the wiretap statute.
* Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Authorizes the government to carry out electronic surveillance -- against any person, even Americans -- in the United States upon obtaining a judicial order based upon probable cause that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. FISA, which applies primarily to the government's power in foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence cases, therefore does not offer many of the protections required under the federal wiretap statute. See EPIC's FISA Page.

Title III governs the "contents" of communications, defined as "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." The Supreme Court has held that the contents of a communication are entitled to full Fourth Amendment protection. Therefore, the government's access to "content" information is limited by constitutionally imposed search and seizure requirements. In order to abide by these constitutional restrictions, Title III imposes strict limitations upon the government's ability to obtain communication content:

* a law enforcement agency may intercept content only pursuant to a court order issued upon findings of probable cause to believe that
1. an individual is committing one of a list of specifically enumerated crimes,
2. communications concerning the specified offense will be intercepted, and
3. "the pertinent facilities are commonly used by the alleged offender or are being used in connection with the offense."
* Only designated officials can authorize such interception,
* The interception is authorized for a limited time period.
* Interception is subject to a statutory exclusionary rule: any information intercepted in violation of the wiretap statute cannot be admitted into evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.

Conversely, the Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutionally recognized privacy interest in the telephone numbers intercepted by a pen register or trap and trace device. In U.S. v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), the Supreme Court emphasized the limited information captured by pen register devices: "neither the purport of any communication between the caller and the recipient of the call, their identities, nor whether the call was even completed is disclosed by pen registers." This is reflected in the ease with which law enforcement officers are able to obtain trap and trace/pen register installation: upon the certification by an attorney that pen register information is likely to be relevant, the judge must approve the installation of the device.
Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions
Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore

Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the statute authorizing the u

Another point of interest

[erroneus]

I wonder how many, if any, telemarketting executives out there appear on the Do-Not-Call lists themselves? I think *THAT* would be an interesting fact to look into. Does anyone have access to the data pertaining to this?

Re:Another point of interest

[LiquidCoooled]

I wonder how many, if any, executives out there answer their own phone.....

Re:Another point of interest

[hackstraw]

I wonder how many, if any, telemarketting executives out there appear on the Do-Not-Call lists themselves? I think *THAT* would be an interesting fact to look into. Does anyone have access to the data pertaining to this?

How many executives from various different companies are stupid enough to use thier own products or services? Maybe for the hair club for men, but for most of these short term marketed items, I would bet few if any actually use their products.

Plus, and exec at a telemarketer firm could actually say semi-honestly that "I gave at the office", or at least had the opportunity to do so :)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I do not want the gov't micromanaging my life. If I want to give my phone number out for a legitimate reason, I will do so. If I do not want to give it out, I won't.

In all my years of doing this, NO ONE has denied me a sale. In fact, the few times I do get a manager instead of the clerk, he generally apologizes with me and agrees that this is more a marketing thing than a legitimate request.

Beware of asking the gov't to solve all of our problems for you.

Supreme Court retirements?

[tji]

Okay, here is a tangent to a Supreme Court story.. Maybe some court watchers out there will have some good info.

Since the 2000 election, there have been lots of rumors about three Supreme Court justices retiring due to health or age reasons. People "in the know" made it sound like a sure thing. But, it hasn't happened, and it's obviously not happening during this presidential term.

Any clues as to why none have retired? I think two of the three potential retirees were rather conservative, so leaving in a Republican administration was the basis for many of the rumors. With a Bush re-election definitely not a sure thing, it would seem risky for them to wait until the next term.

Do they not want Bush nominating their replacements? Or, were the court watchers just way off base?

Re:Supreme Court retirements?

[loco_0wnz]

What does your "tangent" have to do with the topic?

Re:Supreme Court retirements?

[micromoog]

it's obviously not happening during this presidential term.

I wouldn't count on that until January 20.

Re:Supreme Court retirements?

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point it would be way too late to get a new judge ratified. If Bush picked some right wing wacko that supported his views on discrimination of gays, melding church and state, etc. the Dem's would hang it up long enough to get Bush out of office.

Wait a minute

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

You mean the branches of the American government can't even be bothered to work together? No wonder your war is arsed.

Re:Wait a minute

[LetterJ]

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

By having checks and balances with each branch able to step in and correct the other, we can keep things relatively in line. Not that things like PATRIOT don't get through, but *without* the checks and balances, there's a pretty good chance we'd see a lot more and a lot worse than that.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the branches of the American government can't even be bothered to work together? No wonder your war is arsed.

*sigh*, this is by design moron. The theory being that a government can become dangerous when any one person/group can control all three branches of government (legislative, judicial, executive). Therefore we separate them. It's called "separation of powers" or sometimes "checks and balances."

Re:Wait a minute

[danheskett]

People expect checks and balances to happen overnight..

The nasty bits of the USA PATRIOT act are on the way out.

Critics however just bitch and moan and complain and want it gone overnight. If that was possible, that'd be worse than what we have now.

Checks and balances exisits, but they are slow moving deliberative iterative processes.

Re:Wait a minute

[Enrico Pulatzo]

I'll bite:

It's the notion that the branches are poised AGAINST each other that keeps American democracy "working." The founding fathers realized that people can't be given too much power, and thereby implemented a system of checks and balances to keep one branch from getting too much pull.

That being said, it'd sure be nice to see the judicial branch come down on the PATRIOT act.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the USA has reached a certain age, you will get rid of the republic and form a different government?

And what, exactly, is necessarily wrong with a monarchy? Must it be what it used to be? And even if it would be that bad, would you say that a republic with a president necessarily is better? Is it?

I live in a monarchy, and if it doesn't go against your worldview too much, we are actually free (we can even use sex toys, unlike our Texan friends), we don't have a government that locks us up indefinitely, we don't have the death penalty, we believe in healthcare and education for everyone (I'm silly enough to believe a civilisation worth its name should do that), we're not very religious, and we have long ago decided to get rid of any imperalistic and oppressive ambitions. Can your "modern" country brag about the same things?

Re:Wait a minute

[HTH NE1]

The founding fathers realized that people can't be given too much power

I think you meant, "people must not be given too much power", because people certainly can be given too much power and so there need be preventions against them acquiring too much.

Re:Wait a minute

[D.A. Zollinger]

Exactly. While the kneejerk reactionaries in our legislative branch may have been able to pass the PATRIOT act, we are seeing the cool headed philosophers in the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act. While there are many laws in the code, until they have been tested in a court of law, they are pretty much worthless. This is something that most attournies realize, and many of them would jump at the chance to test a new law. This is also why many say the GPL is not valid -- again, it has not been tested in a court of law (although many who have taken a look at the agreement say it is enforcable).

I say that those in the legislative branch are kneejerk reactionaries. They are, because they have to be. They have to be sensative to everything that goes on, and usually overreact to a situation to appear as if they are "tough" on an issue, or weren't slacking off on the issue before it became important, i.e. terrorism. A representative's position is up for re-election every 2 years. They have to be on top of every minor complaint any of their constituants brings up, after all, dissappoint a constituant, and that is a vote against you (along with everyone they tell). Senators have a bit more cushion, after all, they have a longer term at 6 years. Also, they cover more area and constiuants, so they can afford to piss off someone on the south side, and still remain strong with their base on the north side. The goal of course is to be more concerned about long term health of the country, but they can be kneejerk reactionaries as well when something really important happens to the country.

In the judicial branch, things are a bit different. And while local judges may be elected, most in the federal government are appointed based on their track record as a judge. Therefore they can make "unpopular" decisions, and strike down legislation without fear of being voted out of office.

Take for instance the COPA legislation (Child Online Protection Act). A very popular bill with both legislators and a certain portion of the constituants whom they represent. Yet every version that has been tested in a court of law has been struck down so far. The legislative branch passes a new version, it goes to trial, and is struck down as being unconstitutional. The judges are free to rule in favor of defending the constitution without fear of retaliation from those who are upset with their unpopular decision. They can defend the constitution when the legislature has failed to defend it.

Re:Wait a minute

[Trolling4Dollars]

Actually he probably does. The United States is barely out of it's pimple faced teen years, whilst England and Europe are exiting their greying midlife crises.

Re:Wait a minute

[ViolentGreen]

Well it's all well and good when it works. But what happens when your current ruler dies and someone who is less favorable takes over. You are stuck.

I won't even respond to your last troll of a paragraph.

Re:Wait a minute

[jotok]

Therefore they can make "unpopular" decisions, and strike down legislation without fear of being voted out of office.

This also means that the Judiciary can trump the actions of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. One recent example is the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. If you believe USSC, then "precedent" (which the courts set, themselves) says that they can invalidate any law and place restrictions on the activity of the Executive. For democracy in general, this is a Bad Thing.

Re:Wait a minute

[Deagol]

Go fix me a turkey pot-pie!

Re:Wait a minute

[EzInKy]

If you believe USSC, then "precedent" (which the courts set, themselves) says that they can invalidate any law and place restrictions on the activity of the Executive. For democracy in general, this is a Bad Thing.

The Supreme Court is often the only institution standing between the rights of minorities and the tyranny of the majority, and that my friend is a very, very good thing freedom in general.

Re:Wait a minute

[jonbryce]

Europe is still a baby in terms of its current setup.

England is a very different matter of course.

Re:Wait a minute

[trentblase]

The act may be on it's way out, but damage has definitely been done. On another note, I'm surprised the FBI didn't just come "confiscate" the ruling. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I often get this feeling in my gut that our so-called checks and balances are either counterproductive, useless, or both.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

but i bet you dont have guns like we have here in texas YEEHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Re:Wait a minute

[Bill Dog]

The Supreme Court is often the only institution standing between the rights of minorities and the tyranny of the majority, and that my friend is a very, very good thing freedom in general.

Agreed. And the converse is true as well -- there can be tyranny of the minority, with a sympathetic judge. Until we get rid of activist judges who rule based on what they think America should become instead of what the Constitution says about it, if anything, and until, ahem, a certain side of the political spectrum ceases and desists trying to change America through the courts because they know they could never achieve popular opinion for many things, then some additional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch is worth looking into. BTW, I don't like the idea of Executive Orders, either -- our tripartite form of government has served us well for over 2 centuries, but when branches encroach upon another's role and throw out of balance what the founders put into place, that is a very, very bad thing for freedom in general.

Re:Wait a minute

[hesiod]

> the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act

Er... Neutering. I don't mean to be an ass (OK, I do) but nudering, I suppose, would mean to make it naked, revealing all the nastiness. We already knew how nasty it was. Now it's had its overgrown balls cut off, as you meant (or perhaps just shrunk a bit).

Re:Wait a minute

[mattACK]

blah blah activist judges blah blah

Any time I see talking points for one campaign or the other I cringe. It is certainly a helpful reminder to ignore the poster. To that end, please continue their use.

Re:Wait a minute

[jotok]

But controversy over judicial activism have been around since Brown v. Board of Ed. Should I assume then that you have been ignoring this "buzzword" since the 1950s, or that (more likely) you perhaps have a little reading to catch up on? :)

Re:Wait a minute

[mattACK]

I read voraciously. This word surfaces to scare folks when scaring is needed. I stand by my point.

Re:Wait a minute

[EzInKy]

Agreed. And the converse is true as well -- there can be tyranny of the minority, with a sympathetic judge. Until we get rid of activist judges who rule based on what they think America should become instead of what the Constitution says about it, if anything, and until, ahem, a certain side of the political spectrum ceases and desists trying to change America through the courts because they know they could never achieve popular opinion for many things, then some additional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch is worth looking into.

Enough checks and balances are already in place. If a large enough majority (75%) feels that "activist" judges are interpreting the Constitution wrong then they can pass an amendendment that clarifies how it should be read.

Re:Wait a minute

[killjoe]

And the next president may end up nominating as many as four judges to it.

Something to think about.

Re:Wait a minute

[killjoe]

"Until we get rid of activist judges "

The definition of "activist judge": Somebody who rules in a way I don't like.

Re:Wait a minute

[planarian]

" ...we are seeing the cool headed philosophers in the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act. " Nudering? Is that some sort of secret, debauched Supreme Court ceremony?

Re:Wait a minute

[Zebbers]

What monarchy is this? You brag but don't name.

Re:Wait a minute

[jcr]

The nasty bits of the USA PATRIOT act are on the way out.

Let's hope you're correct.

-jcr

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's played Civilization knows that the US isn't a Republic or Democracy - it's ruled by Despotism

Re:Wait a minute

[mcrbids]

While the kneejerk reactionaries in our legislative branch may have been able to pass the PATRIOT act, we are seeing the cool headed philosophers in the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act.

/BEGIN GRAMMAR NAZI

"nudering"? Some derivative of "nude"? I get this funny picture of a fat, middle-aged senator being stripped of his clothing in a very public forum....

I think you meant "neutering?

Oh, and yeah, this is Grammar Nazi stuff, but I only bring it up because it's funny....

Re:Wait a minute

[Winkhorst]

The constitution specifically gives Congress the right to oversee the Supreme Court. How long is THAT check and balance going to take to be implimented?

Re:Wait a minute

[Paradise Pete]

The act may be on it's way out, but damage has definitely been done.

Well, yeah. If there was no damage it probably wouldn't be on the way out.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Definition of an activist judge is any judge who oversteps their authority. Case in point, the judges in Massachusetts who ruled that the legislative branch had until a certain date to enact a law allowing gays to marry. Sorry, but the judges do not have that type of authority, and the ones who ruled in that case should be impeached.

Re:Wait a minute

[TyrranzzX]

Obeying a benevolent dictator is like sticking your head in an allegators mouth; you're completly at it's mercy, if it likes you, you're ok, if it hates you, then you're screwed. That just isn't the american way; americans, in my experience (I'v lived ever since I can remember) are roudy, loud, well mingled folk with plenty of room for nutty people. They prefer their rights are ensured with guns, and about 60% still harbor great distrust of therir government (especially the south).

And the reason our government is so screwed is because we have so many traitors in it accepting bribe money and favors for votes.

Can your "modern" country brag about the same things?

Why the hell would I want to waste my time bragging to a foreigner, much less anyone?

Re:Wait a minute

[Xaoswolf]

and of course, we just happened to be more successfull here in the states than they have been in the last several years...

You're right, what do we know about being a successfull country...

Re:Wait a minute

[Trolling4Dollars]

THAT attitude is what typifies the problem with Americans. You and most Americans have no humility. It's one thing to be quietly good at something, and another thing to go bragging about how "great" you are whether it's true or not. That's what Europe and the U.K. know. They know how to be quietly superior. Most "Amuricans" are just hot dogs who THINK we are successful. Face it. If the U.S. dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, there would be a collective "Oh my god!" and then back to business as usual for the rest of the world in a few days.

Re:Wait a minute

[killjoe]

That's the exact reason to have judges in the first place. To act as a counterweight to pandering politicians who would take away rights from an unpopular minority in order to gain some votes.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution specifically gives Congress the right to oversee the Supreme Court

You either:

• are a troll
• are not talking about the U.S. Constitution
• are a product of our failed public education system
• are smoking crack

Where, exactly, does the Constitution give oversight of the SCOTUS to Congress? Please enlighten us with your um...interpretation, please!

Re:Wait a minute

[Forbman]

The Executive Orders generally apply to Executive Branch departemtns (i.e., all of them, except the courts and Congress).

Because the Judicial Branch is so inherently limited in its focus, I don't see the problem with "activist" judges, any less so than I do with completely ignorant and clueless juries.

What I do have a problem with is judges that fail to apply the law. Case in point, the judge presiding over the white trash wacko who attacked the Kansas City Royals baseball coach at a Chicago White Sox game a couple of years ago. The judge might as well have thrown out the case, and has quite the reputation for doing so.

Re:Wait a minute

[Xaoswolf]

if the us dropped off the face of the earth, I'm pretty sure that a little more would happen.

I'm guessing that africa would quickly discover that most of their aids releif has just dissapeared...

This would of course be followed by the sea waters russing in to fill the void that was just so shortly ago occupied by the USA.

And judging by how much of the land below the surface slid away, the water could hit a nice large area of freshly revealed lava, and the resulting steam cloud would probably disrupt weather around the globe, killing a significant amount of people.

Of course, I also don't know what would happen to the planet's orbit and rotation with that chunck of land missing, or just what would happen to the land that slid off, I mean, that's a hell of a chunck of rock to have floating in space, should it fall back to earth, it would wipe out the planet.

Re:Wait a minute

[Trolling4Dollars]

Heheheh... THAT'S the spirit. I know you KNOW what I meant, but you get 10 points for style.

europe

[BlackShirt]

Is there similar regulation in EU? germany, france, UK, nordic? any plan to adopt it in all EU states?

Links, please

Re:europe

[pjt33]

The UK has it: Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Since the regs are based on an EC directive, I expect most of the EU will have something similar.

Re:europe

[Savage-Rabbit]

Is there similar regulation in EU? germany, france, UK, nordic? any plan to adopt it in all EU states?


We used to have this problem in my own country (i'm scandinavian) the "do not call" list was simply implemented by the relevant ministry and the Telecom's quietly removed anybody who signed up from the telephonebooks/databases. I find it amazing (as, I am sure, do many Americans) that the supreme court of the United States really has to be pestered with something as frivolous as deciding wheter freedom of speech and wasting people's time with useless advertisements is the same thing.

Re:europe

[nilenico]

In Norway, we've had this for ages. Here's a link to the central registry that handles this. (Sorry it's in Norwegian only, but there are other parts of the site that is in English, and tells you about the other stuff they do.)

It works very well, and offers consumers protection against telemarketers and also targeted snailmail advertising.

The individual's right to privacy is very strong here, btw.
There are a lot of restrictions on correlating data from different databases, and using data for other than their original intended purpose (for instance using the information stored with toll booth companies to track your movements as you drive through various toll booths (paying as you go with your electronic transmitter thingie, so they know where you've passed)).

Re:europe

[nilenico]

Replying to self here - found this describing the Central Marketing Exclusion Register (to sign up, you still go to the Norwegian page).

Re:europe

[BlackShirt]

Nuisance calls
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/to pics/ec omm/all_about/todays_framework/privacy_protection/ text_en.htm#nuisance

Unsolicited commercial communications
http://europa.eu.int/information_s ociety/topics/ec omm/all_about/todays_framework/privacy_protection/ text_en.htm#unsolicited

Just quick scanning. Does it apply only to e-mails & SMS? No donotcallme - registry?

Re:europe

[BlackShirt]

Article 13 - Unsolicited communications

1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (*automatic calling machines*), facsimile machines (*fax*) or electronic *mail* for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.

Re:europe

[BlackShirt]

Meanwhile, it's become rather more than obvious, that the privacy and electronic communications regulations that, in December, government promised would put an end to spend to spam, is as effective as, well, just about every other promise coming from Westminster of late. You may remember that it was made an offence for a UK company to send junk email or text messages, unless the recipient is an existing customer or has given their permission to receive such material. The penalty was a fine of £5,000 for each breach but with the catch that only covered individual e-mail accounts and not corporate ones.

Ironically, the appearance of the new regulations appeared to have encouraged some spammers to set-up shop in Britain and the anti-spam organisation The Spamhaus Project, which operates a blacklist of known spammers, has reportedly been receiving threats from operators who claim that Spamhaus has no legal right to block them as they are operating inside the new regulations.

With nobody yet prosecuted by the commissioner and unlikely to this year, the question of what constitutes legitimate direct mail and what does not, appears to be a complete mess to the observer. As a result, IT departments are making arbitrary decisions on the authority if the IT Manager on what correspondence they choose to filter at the gateway and the legitimate email marketing companies, who are bonded sender certified and use 'opt-in' lists are finding themselves excluded.

http://zentelligence.blogspot.com/2004/06/mail-c al l-lawrence-lessig-has-lost-his.html

Re:europe

[isj]

In Denmark it is very simple. A salesman is not allowed to contact you in person or via phone at your home, workplace or other non-public places, There are 4 exceptions for historic reasons (books, insurance, newspapers, and a limited subset of car help/sick transport services).

No direct links, but you would be looking for the law "Lov om visse forbrugeraftaler", section 2, paragraphs 6-8

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that where you rent a game? I can see why they would want it. Folks who don't return games are a major source of loss. That would be one of the few times I would give out my phone numer (pizza place other time).

Otherwise, I say "NO".

I fixed my unwanted call problem

[deinol]

At least for now, they can't call cell phones. So I don't even have a land line anymore. I didn't use it when I had it, and it's not like I can not have a cell phone for my line of work. My old land line only got calls from telemarketers, nobody who knew me used it.

Re:I fixed my unwanted call problem

[spikedvodka]

For now anyways it's illegal for them to call cell phones in most places... because you have to pay for the call (in minutes used)

If one does call you, the first thing you should say is "This is a cell phone"... they'll hang right up on you most of the time

ob: YMMV

Re:I fixed my unwanted call problem

[msim]

Sounds like my place.

Anyone that knows me calls me on my mobile, if they call me on my home number, it just goes through to a dialup on my pc 9so that my gf can use my adsl access instead of paying :-). It's been this way over a year and a half!

Please GOD

[hsmith]

Let them start passing legistlation on SPAM and spyware. These are more relevant to myself.

Re:Please GOD

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem there is the laws would not apply to international sources. You'd have to somehow get all the countries in the world to agree.

Question on the do-not-call-list

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

How far does it extend? I know non-profits are supposeedly exempt, but can you tell them you are on the DNCL anyway?

What about companies you deal with? Case in point, my bank calls me *constantly* with BS deals for house loans, car loans, crap like that, can I tell them to FOAD?

Esp. now that the DNCL has been delared valid!

Re:Question on the do-not-call-list

[eyeota]

You still have the right to tell them to take you off their call list, and they must oblidge and do so. Think of the DNCL as a 1st layer filter stating, "If this person doesn't do business with you or you're not a non-profit go away" which will take out probably 80-90% of your telemarketing calls. You still have the right to tell the remaining 10-20% to take you off their list and they must comply and technically their first call hasn't violated any laws; however, subsequent calls after you've given them notice is a violation under another FCC regulation.

Re:Question on the do-not-call-list

[TykeClone]

Yes - but you were able to do that before! (American) Banks are under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which basically deals with financial privacy. Each year they send you their "GLB Disclosure" that details what you need to do to get on the bank's no-call list. After that, they either don't bother you or they have to tell their regulators why.

Re:Question on the do-not-call-list

[Nexzus]

I know it might be a pain to switch, but you could always threaten your bank with the closure of your account if they keep it up.

Bravo for the Supreme Court... this time around.

[Captain Sarcastic]

There are those who might argue that the telemarketers are doing nothing more than the equivalent of "phone junk mail" - that these phone calls are no different from the unsolicited ads you get in the mail, and that it's not a long walk between the mailbox and the trash can.

That being said, I'm delighted that the Supreme Court didn't accept that interpretation. Telemarketers demand your time in a more immediate fashion, and with some of them able to stay on the line until you've held the switch hook down for 10 seconds, they are far more capable of interfering with other communications than junk mail does with other correspondence.

I'm glad that the Supreme Court took that view - you see, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not necessarily to bow to the will of the people; its purpose is to see whether the balance of rights is maintained.

So, let's not get too carried away with what this decision means. The telemarketing companies may end up trying other ways to get around the "do-not-call" list.

We know what eternal vigilance pays for, after all.

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[Macka]

Why don't you try it first and find out for yourself rather than jumping to conclusions. We've had this in the UK for a while now, and it reduced my nuisance telemarketing calls from 3/day to about 3/year.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating !!

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[XorNand]

Ever thought that B-dubs is asking you for your phone number in case you forget to pickup your takeout order? They certainly don't ask for it when you place an order in the resturaent. Come on people... pizza joints have been doing this for decades. Take off the tin foil hat.

Spoiled?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I've really become spoiled by the lack of telephone solicitations.

Spoiled implies a luxury. This is a right. In these parts it's called "the right to quiet enjoyment".

Remember: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Whereas in Canada...

[Nos.]

We have PIPEDA that says that my home phone number, name, etc. is protected information. Thus calling me at home in this type of situation can be considered a violation of this act. I'm currently in discussions with a car dealership and a bank over violations of both my privacy and my wife's. (We applied for a car loan and got a call from a mortgage specialist - who had our credit history - offering to help transfer our mortgage).

It doesn't take a genius...

[The-Bus]

Perhaps the biggest mistake was that The American Teleservices Association, Mainstream Marketing Services Inc. and TMG Marketing Inc. all decided to run telemarketing campaigns directed at the Supreme Court judges, their family, and staff to hear the case. Not the smartest move to interrupt Rehnquist while he was having his bologna rye sandwich and thinking about the decision.

Re:It doesn't take a genius...

[gcaseye6677]

Are you serious about this? If so, these people live in some sort of altered reality. Apparently they believe their own BS about people desiring telemarketing calls. Now that their cluelessness has fully blown up in their faces, you would think they would finally take the hint and find a more reputable business to get into, like selling crack to willing customers.

Re:It doesn't take a genius...

[The-Bus]

I wish I was serious, but it was just hyperbole. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they actually tried something like that. And if you really think about it, there's no claim of free speech with the DNC. All those people specifically said they don't want to be contacted. I could see if you had to form a whitelist, that might have some sort of basis for argument, but not a blacklist. Oh well. I shed no tears.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Senzei]

Although it does not constitute much of a "need to know" most targeted advertising is handled via either phone messages or junk snailmail. Each requires your phone number or zip code to target you specifically. Usually I am ok with the zip code, as I see a benefit from it (coupons), and recieving excess mail is much less annoying than getting unwanted phone messages. Guess my point is that zip codes are one of the "nicer" options for targeted advertising.

So long as the police don't catch up to you...

[SeanDuggan]

Eh... I'd be careful on the listing the police department number as your own. Too many phone calls to their number asking for John Gaughan and you may up for charges ranging from "false representation as an officer" to "obstruction of justice" to "being a public nuisance." Sure, the charges may not be too terribly applicable, but how many courts are going to argue for you forwarding all business calls to a target, thereby tying up phone lines that are needed for the work of justice?

Re:So long as the police don't catch up to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is the audio equivalent of goatse.cx to give to these people.

Re:So long as the police don't catch up to you...

[Morgon]

While not 100% applicable to this situation, there's always http://www.rejectionhotline.com .. There are local numbers in many states.
I think I might start using that.. (though I'd hate to be on the receiving end - call one of the numbers sometime. Ouch. :-p )

you misunderstand

[supernova87a]

Many people (and corporations) are confusing the meaning of free speech with their belief that they have a so-called "right" to do (something) they want, which they then claim is some form of speech.

I would submit to you that by the term free speech, the constitutional framers (and smart judges) interpreted to mean the free exchange and discourse of intellectual ideas between people and institutions, unrestrained by prior interference by the state.

People calling me to sell products is not exactly the free exchange of intellectual ideas -- they just want to hawk their wares. That's why the no-call list doesn't include political organizations, etc. which *are* in the business of discussing ideas with people.

Re:you misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point. Free speech is often confused with freedom of utterance. The freedom of speech is specifically to prevent the government from restricting particular subjects and has nothing to do with the right to make noise. The only real free speech violations right now is those trying to block religious sounding words from the public debate or anything that happens to have tax money related to it.

Re:you misunderstand

[batdog]

However, unless you are a politician, anyone calling you on behalf of a politician is just hawking wares as well.

Re:you misunderstand

[tompaulco]

The only political organizations that have ever contacted me have been trying to hawk their wares as well.
Same Same charities.

Silver lining...

[SunPin]

Now you can declare salespeople to be terrorists.

See? It isn't that bad.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[kooshvt]

How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get? Buffalo Wild Wings asks when you order, Best Buy now asks when you buy something, we all know and love Shit Shack for what they used to do and probably still do, etc.

My father works at prison so I would amuse myself by always giving out the phone number of the prison to anyone who asked me for my number without purpose. As long as I am in their database under a number I know it all works out. They can retrieve my pertinant infomation and I don't have to be harassed by them.

Whew

[Tyfud]

Just when you think the world is insane, something sane happens.

Now if we could only get them to stop allowing rediculous lawsuits in the system at all, I would be able to sleep easy at night, instead of curled into a ball wishing I had a jumbo sized teddy bear to hug me...That being said, I feel quite confident my suit against Kerry for causing my ears to bleed during the debate will go through.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[sexylicious]

Nope. That's a store where you can buy games and some computer and gaming console items.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[StM.Rawder]

This happened to me in a Comp USA store:

[CompUSA]"That'll be 120.00, may I have your phone number please?"
[Rawder]"What for?" *smiles*

[CompUSA]"Its part of the checkout."
[Rawder]"You mean you wont sell me this without me giving you my phone number?"

[CompUSA]"Well....no...you dont have to."
[Rawder]"Then the answer is no."

[CompUSA]"Would you like 100,000 free AOL minutes?"
[Rawder]"Id rather be killed, lady..."

September, CompUSA, Somewhere in Central California

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And currently they can deny you the sale as well

Of course, it's their business and they can deny you the sale for almost any reason (besides being in a protected class). You could come in wearing Nike's and they like Adidas, so they tell you to take a hike. There's nothing illegal about that, and there shouldn't be.

When I am asked for my phone number I politely tell them "No thank you."

Why bother going through all that? Just give them a random number. I'm doubting all that though. Maybe you just look like a big pussy. Try giving them a "I'm gonna bite your ear off" look when you say that.

When I tell them no, they see that I mean no. Usually the clerk is so shocked they don't what to do, so they enter their own telephone number.

n4

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[TykeClone]

You could have said "555-1212" :)

I'd have done the same in that situation.

This sounds like cert denied

[harlows_monkeys]

The press almost always gets this wrong. The Supreme Court, except in very limited circumatances, gets to choose what cases they accept. What it sounds like happened in this case is that they decided not to hear the appeal. That means the result of the lower court stands--in that circuit.

That is different from the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal--very different. It does NOT mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court. They may, for instance, think that the issue needs more consideration in other lower courts before they take it.

Re:This sounds like cert denied

[Peyna]

I'm glad somebody pointed this out. The Slashdot title makes it even worse "Supreme Court backs..." They made no statement whatsoever; so you can't infer they back the list.

And the rest

[GreatDrok]

I have subscribed to every possible method of stopping the buggers calling me. I'm on the UK equivalent DNC list, I have also registered my postal address in the same way. I bought a TiVO so I wouldn't have to watch the adverts on telly and I use firefox with adblock to clean up my web browsing. Finally, I run spamassassin and thunderbird which clears out SPAM. I wonder how long it will be before the advertisers realise that I don't actually want anything to do with them. More to the point, those that get through my defenses go onto my "do not ever buy anything from these jerks" list so they really should learn to leave me alone. I suspect many others are of the same opinion.

In the UK there is an interesting get-out for the telemarketers - while they cannot call to sell me something there is a provision that allows them to do market research. Now, every single call I get is from some company asking me if I were to replace my kitchen or bathroom etc, which would it be? This is not market research, it is just a slimey way around the legislation. Thankfully, it is rare that I get these calls compared with before I joined the telephone preference service but it is still annoying. Advertisers need to understand that I am making a definite decision to have nothing to do with them and they should just stay away. I would love to say "or else" but have no idea what the "else" would be.

Re:And the rest

[gbnewby]

I'm in the US, and pursue a similar tactic: get on all the lists (basically, the FCC's do not call, and the Direct Marketing Associations's lists, and most importantly opt out of "inquiries" in the credit card reporting agencies).

I also return very nearly every piece of junk mail with a note to remove me from their mailing list. This is a lot of work, and it takes consistency and stamps (for example, telling companies that I actually *do* business with to stop sending me their fricking catalog). Eventually, it works pretty well. I never get telemarketing calls (just stupid surveys sometimes, or charities), and get very little junk mail.

Whenever anyone calls - even for market research, political or charitable purposes - tell them to add you to their "do not call" list. (This is important - just saying "go away" is meaningless.) Basically, if you work hard you can take some control over your mailbox and your telephone.

Finally, as others have said, be cautious about disclosing your information. Do you need to write a check? If not, try a credit or debit card - nobody ever wants your telephone # etc. for those. Avoid any sort of free offer (online or on paper) where you provide your personal information...likely you'll pay for it in sales calls or other harassments. Just be smart, but start (in the US) with the basics: the FCC's list, the DMA's list, and your credit report. PS: nothing that I've found works at all for spam. About all you can do is try to get spamblockers working, or use disposable email addresses, or pursue other strategies. Blah!

Re:And the rest

[GreatDrok]

I also return very nearly every piece of junk mail with a note to remove me from their mailing list. This is a lot of work, and it takes consistency and stamps (for example, telling companies that I actually *do* business with to stop sending me their fricking catalog). Eventually, it works pretty well. I never get telemarketing calls (just stupid surveys sometimes, or charities), and get very little junk mail.

Fortunately for us the most common junk mail we now get includes a prepaid envelope. We send back the material that came with the envelope with "take us off your list" written all over it. The offending company gets to pay the cost of having the useless material sent back to them. I don't know if this works very well, but if most people did this the marketers would soon be out of business.

Re:And the rest

[a24061]

I live in the UK, am registered with the Telephone Preference Service, and get almost no unsolicited calls. But I've also had an unlisted ("ex-directory") number for 10 years---that probably makes the biggest difference.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[pjt33]

Not everyone has a phone number. Would they understand a reply of "Mu"?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In all my years of doing this, NO ONE has denied me a sale.

Me neither. I'm thinking Garcia is just a wussy. They probably think "I'm not gonna let this little wussy tell ME no."

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give them some other number? A co-worker you don't like, something like that? It's not good for society to tie up the police department's lines.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[TykeClone]

They do in Texas - you can shoot trespassers there. If only there was a similar harsh penalty for telemarketers :)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that delivery places did it as a first line of defense against prank callers. Even the carry-out places do it to reduce wastage. It's against corporate regs. (often, it's even against gov't health regs.) to have prepared food sitting out for more than 15-30 min. in some places.

I've given my ph# to Papa John's Pizza many a time, and personally get no telemarketing calls (ymmv) on my land line (which I treat like an hotmail address, since I only have it as a requisite for DSL). I'm pretty sure that it's just a firewall against those "clever" 12-year-old kids, but you're right, you never can be sure...

Of course, Best Buy and their kin are a totally different story. I've never had a problem with either giving no phone number or just lying. Once in my youth, I thought it was the funniest thing (sigh) to give my local Radio Hack the contact information for a "William Gibson" in Vancouver. They've never cared enough to inquire about anything.

The worst time I ever had was a time when I really didn't have a phone at all and the U-Haul company refused to rent me a fscking _hand-dolly_ (for ~$5) because I could not provide a ph#. I was desperate enough to offer to escrow my state ID and major CC to them, but they (thankfully) refused and just asked why I didn't even have a cell-phone (!). That's Cambridge for you, I suppose. I eventually had to trudge back home just to borrow a roommate's cell phone number.

It's not tresspassing or anything like that

[Sycraft-fu]

The problem comes form people confusing the right to free speech with the right to be heard. One is not the other. The constution gaurentees that you are allowed to speak free of government restrictions (for the most part). You can make art how you like, scream your views out in the park, etc. What it does NOT gaurentee is that you'll have an audience for your expression. You are free to express yourself, and people are free to ignore you.

Advertisers aren't the only ones who have this problem, many people think that you should be required to listen to their views. I've had mall preachers (religious nuts that come to the large grassy area in the middle of campus called the mall) get angry and persue me when I ignore them (which does get them attention, but not the kind they want).

That's why the DNC list is constutional. IT's not stopping advertisers form expresisng themselves, it just says they aren't allowed to try and make you listen. You are still eprfectly free to call them and hear all about it.

Re:It's not tresspassing or anything like that

[jcr]

I've had mall preachers (religious nuts that come to the large grassy area in the middle of campus called the mall) get angry and persue me when I ignore them

Did you call the cops?

-jcr

Re:It's not tresspassing or anything like that

[jcr]

The problem comes form people confusing the right to free speech with the right to be heard.

Well, more to the point: telemarketing is not, and has never been a free-speech issue; It's a property rights issue. A telespammer's right to express himself does not include a right to use my (phone|computer|living rooom wall) to do so.

-jcr

legislation vs judicial

[kmanq]

Anyone else wondering why the Supreme Court has taken over functions of legislation recently? It seems to me that this is not how the court was originally designed to operate...My understanding was that there are supposed to be three branches of governement...with good reason: keeping anyone person or group from having too much power. Now it seems to me that the Supreme Court has aquired the 'power' of legislation by 'vetoing' laws in this country...wouldn't it be better to rewrite the law ie using the process of a republic...

Re:legislation vs judicial

[notthepainter]

AFAIK, that IS one of their jobs, to veto laws. They interpret the Constitution, the legistlative branch doesn't. Congress can pass a law that is unconstitutional, then the Supremes undo it.

If they people don't like this, the recourse is to change the Constitution.

Re:legislation vs judicial

[Steve B]

Anyone else wondering why the Supreme Court has taken over functions of legislation recently?

Er, no. The legislation in question was passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like the little flowchart in your Civics 101 textbook describes. The Court simply declined to listen to the telemarketers' claims that the law was unconstitutional (and, IMO, properly so, given the flimsiness of the "constitutional" argument).

Re:legislation vs judicial

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. It reviews laws created by the Legislative Branch and approved by the Executive Branch to determine that they are not un-Constitutional. If a law is overturned the Legislative Branch always has the option to go back and redraft the law in a way that is Constitutional.

Seems to me that this was covered in 6th Grade Social Studies.

Re:legislation vs judicial

[kmanq]

it seems that my thinking on the subject needs to be rethought :)

Re:legislation vs judicial

[Forbman]

Congress can also pass a law that also strips the SOCTUS' jurisdiction over the matter...

It's happened once before, and was thought to be the next tactic to be used by the Repubs after the "marriage sanctity amendment", or whatever it was called, failed in the House...

Hard to rule constitutionality over a law that Congress has passed a law saying you have no jurisdiction over the matter...

It's easy to get around...

[Belial6]

Your right, they will get around the DNC list very easily. A "Charity" organization will simply be the outsourced telemarketers. If they get a small percentage of the profits, the call is technically from a "charity". So, Citibank can have a hundred calls a day going to your DNC'ed phone number, and because Christian Childrens Fund is doing the sales, it is all legit.

Re:It's easy to get around...

[Kane Skalter]

Not necessarily. The minute they try to sell something, it takes away the exemption for charities. Suppose that Christian Children's Fund calls you. If they ask for nothing more than a donation, it's a charitable call. If they then turn around and offer you a CCF logo credit card from Citibank, it becomes a sales call and is subject to the DNC law, just as if they called expressly for that purpose. I just love the way /.'ers jump to conclusions.

In My Opinion

[dmomo]

The Bill of Rights is for the individual, not a potentially immortal, money-making entity. It's meant to protect the individual, not the interest of a commercial organization.

Re:In My Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, commercial organizations are made up of individuals. Do you lose your rights once you create a company?

We need a you-may-call list

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I shouldn't have to do anything to not be hassled by these morons. There should be a may-call list. If I want to be bothered by cold calls, I can opt-in. They can run a lottery, and once a day some luckyt may-call winner gets $1,000 or something. That will give them a decent sized pool of suckers.

And it would get them off my property.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[theskipper]

Fwiw...

I hadn't been in Best Buy for over 5 years. Last week a power supply went out and had to get a replacement asap so BB was the only option.

During checkout the girl asked me for my phone number and, as I usually do when asked by any store, gave my fax number. Sure enough she said that the number was incorrect which had to mean that they were checking phone numbers against the credit card record.

At that point it could be argued that they could simply check a driver's license as proof but I had no desire whatsoever to argue with the manager.

So far there haven't been any calls. But I still cringe at the fact that for all intents and purposes giving a phone number could be used as an opt-in for their telemarketing. Even whether or not my theory is correct about how the number was checked.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[garcia]

Ever thought that B-dubs is asking you for your phone number in case you forget to pickup your takeout order? They certainly don't ask for it when you place an order in the resturaent. Come on people... pizza joints have been doing this for decades. Take off the tin foil hat.

Pizza joints typically deliver your food to you. Any BW3 I have been to does not. I can see asking for a phone number in case the delivery person is lost (usually a common occurance with the pizza places I deal with) or to verify that they aren't delivering 100 pizzas as a prank.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Eastree]

I use the same tactic (except listing any number in online profiles). I'm fortunate enough that my phone number is nearly identical to a local Chinese restaurant. I guess it's my way of taking revenge on all the misdialled calls to my place demanding chicken fried rice ...

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Jucius Maximus]

"Come on people... pizza joints have been doing this for decades."

I am constantly astonished by people talking about pizza places selling the numbers to telemarketers. How often does this happen? Is it a US problem only? I've never *ever* had it happen tp me here in Canada.

My do-not-buy-from list

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Absolutely. Back when spam was first taking off, there was a place to pledge never to do business with spammers. I have stuck with that for lo, these many years.''

But telemarketers... you need to tell them you won't buy from them or join them or whatever. I've done this on a number of occasions. ``Look, I currently do xyzzy business with your company. If I ever get another unsolicited phone call from your company or a rep, I will never do business with you again. Is that clear? Please make sure this gets passed along to the appropriate people. Thank you.''

It seems to help. Of coursem you have to be ready to follow through.

[CLICK]

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[gcaseye6677]

The list has worked pretty well for me. I have had maybe 3 illegal sales calls since the list went into effect, all of which I reported.

phoney suckdom

[cakefool]

less than 14 hours after getting the phone line sorted for my new house, before I gave the number to anyone, I got a "call" from a tape machine. It claimed to be 'carol ######' from BBC radio 9, saying I'd won a prize after having entered my details into the BBC database. Need less to say, I hung up. There is no-one of that name working in the BBC, and I hadn't entered my details into any database, and as far as I'm aware, there IS NO RADIO 9!

Come the phone bill, I have accepted a reverse charges call from an organisation that doesn't exist, and am being billed £109 for the 11 or so seconds.

Shit hits fan

phone company doesn't charge me, changes my number, self is happy

Guess who call 2 days later...

shit hits fan again, after lengthy rant at phone corp, it turns out their standard contract gives them the right to sell my number to certain orgs. Since I hadn't signed a contract, I was miffed. Turns out their contract is vocal - I entered into it when I phoned and asked for a land line.

No longer with above company.

slashdotting from work...

Re:phoney suckdom

[Anonymous Coward]

I live across the pond so it doesn't really matter to me, but just out of morbid curiosity, what is this scum-sucking evil phone company called?

And isn't it redundant to say "scum-sucking evil" when you already know you're talking about a phone company?

Re:phoney suckdom

[cakefool]

british telecom need i say more?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[destiney]

I have never had anyone refuse to do business with me because I wouldn't give them my phone number.

Radio-Shack refused to take back a defective rj45 coupler from me one day because I refused to give them my phone number. I had my reciept, original packing, and all. At $8 each (only place open the night before at 8:00pm) I wasn't about to just let it slide. I forced the issue, and made the cashier phone his manager. He was instructed to comply with my desire to not give my phone number. I got my refund, in cash, and walked out of there very happy that day.

The exceptions for political use are important!

[WebCowboy]

In Canada there are regulations pertaining to direct marketing as well (unfortunately, we are a step behind in DNC lists but hopefully that will change). Political campaign literature is expressly allowed in the Elections Act--which means campaigners must be premitted to deliver unaddressed bulk mail, computer email and telephone calls as they see fit. They are also allowed to campaign door-to-door. These rules apply only during the (official, 35-day) election campaign--they cannot bug you all the time.

You are free to refuse their literature, phone calls and email messages, but you cannot, for example, prevent a campaigner from entering an apartment building, putting up signs on a public boulevard in view of your house or impede his ability to offer literature to others (that could include an ISP blacklisting the mail server of a political party, or interfering with the operation of a call centre). Do do so during a campaign is actually a criminal offence in Canada.

This is because the democratic process is paramount--above even privacy--in the eye of the law here. You can't ban phone campaigns because you hate GW Bush. You don't HAVE to listen to the call--as soon as you know it's a campaign call from Bush just HANG TH F*** UP! (One of the responsibilities campaigners have in exchange for protected rights to campaign is that they mist identify their affiliration on demand--and in the case of pre-recorded messages they are supposed to begin with such an identification. If they don't you can complain and have actions taken). If they come to your door, just slam it in their face if you want. If they leave a pamphlet in the mail, shred it. If they leave a sign in the public median on the street in front of your house...JUST LIVE WITH IT.

The problem isn't special rules protecting campaign methods--it's campaign SPENDING. Crooked industry lobbyists in the pockets of congressmen ruin democracy. Compelling the candidate for Sherrif of Tumbleweed County, South Dakota to abide by a do-not-call list when one of his few cheap, effective means of campaigning in a geographically large juristiction is through phone-outs conducted by volunteers--well, that would ruin democracy as well.

Re:The exceptions for political use are important!

[brianosaurus]

No one is trying to ban phone campaigns. No one is trying to legislate that they can't make calls. The list is just a set of people who do not want the calls.

Re:The exceptions for political use are important!

[Bill Dog]

You may have missed WebCowboy's point, and that is the opinion that an unrestricted democratic process is so important that it should trump even privacy issues. Don't know if I totally agree, but worth an Interesting mod, if I hadn't posted already in this thread.

Re:The exceptions for political use are important!

[brianosaurus]

I understand his point. But whether or not the political groups call me, I won't hear their message. In fact if they do call me, I'll be annoyed with them for that, and I still won't listen to their message. There will only be a negative outcome if they call me.

My point is that a DNC does not restrict the democratic process. The DNC doesn't deny them the right to make phone calls. It just allows it to be more efficient by not calling those who have indicated that they do not want to be called.

End Political Spam

[AmericanInKiev]

As a person who has spent time behind bars for removing illegal spam (Street Spam), I'm pretty involved in the right to "privacy" in public spaces.

I'm actually surprised the SC has taken this popular, but problematic approach.

I predict that telemarketers will all go into "legitimate" businesses, such as raising money for cancer, communists, boy scouts, lesbian child care co-ops, and in short any tenable proposition.

In failing to insist on full content neutrality, the SC has opened the door on a dual standard - one for ("them") people who earn money the honest way, and one for ("us politicians") who earn money by taxing those in the first group.

This "dual standard" approach is now the standard, and some state laws have been changed today as a result of this ruling. NC law 14-399 for example declares as litter everything except what the SC says is protected speach. The SC has just upheld "Content-Specific" rules for discriminating against certain kinds of speach, so as a result, NC law now supports "Content-Specific" definitiongs for littering - what a headache.

AIK

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[RocketScientist]

The problem is that ending the other bullshit is hard, because the other bullshit is typically either "political speech" or possibly "religious speech", which have a much higher standard of protection than "commercial speech".

There is a legal precedent (several of them, actually) for limiting "commercial speech". Specifically, it's been upheld that limits on advertising for certain types of products to minors are constitutional.

There are very few legal precedents in favor of limiting political speech (the SC upholding McCain-Feingold is the only recent example I can come up with).

So, a law that limits commercial speech is unlikely to get shot down, because there are a set of legal precedents for limiting commercial speech (which is pretty much what the SC said today, that this law doesn't violate the Constitution because it's a strict limit on commercial speech). However, a law limiting political speech (phone calls, in your case) is a much more sticky issue, and is more likely to get thrown out by the SC as unconstitutional.

I think the reason the FTC put the restrictions on the Do-Not-Call that they did (specifically that the list only applies to commercial telemarketing calls) was to prevent being smacked down by the SC. It was more likely if they put the list into effect for all calls that the entire policy would be killed, but by only doing commercial speech they could get that passed. Of course, the other reason the FTC, the federal TRADE commission, only established the policy to restrict commercial calls is that political and nonprofit calls aren't really trade, and are outside the jurisdiction of the FTC.

It's a good policy, and it was well implemented by the FTC to maximize effectiveness and minimize the chance of getting shot down by the SC. It hit the middle ground perfectly.

As far as banning companies from asking for your phone number, I've never been refused service or sales for not providing my phone number. Radio Shack discontinued the practice years ago (2 or 3 years ago, I think). I have one vendor I do regular business with (MicroCenter) who uses my phone number to keep track of my purchases so that I can do returns if I lose my receipt. That's a fair value to me, so I'll provide them with the information in exchange for the value provided. They've never misused the data I've given them, and I continue to patronize their store because of it.

You can always try to work with your congresscritter to put pressure on the executive branch to create a policy similar to the Do-Not-Call for political advertisements. I doubt you'll find your congresscritter particularly responsive, and I don't think the SC would uphold the policy even if it was enacted, but I was surprised they upheld McCain-Feingold, so what do I know.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[coyote-san]

You also have the right to refuse to complete the sale at any time (modulo any product already consumed, service already performed, etc.) I've done it when "sales" had hidden gotchas, when managers insisted on information I felt they had no right to (and I agree that phone orders for food are an exception), etc.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[gcaseye6677]

Why didn't you just make up a number? I appreciate the idea of standing for your principals or whatever, but sometimes it's really not worth it. Also, if you need to use a fake name, try Craven Moorehead. Funny as hell, but nobody ever catches it if you say it right.

TeleMarketing faxing

[Vague but True]

Yeah, this may be offtopic but whatever. I hate the fsck faxes they send.

Re:TeleMarketing faxing

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution for you to feel better - get a black sheet of construction paper or twelve and fax them to the original spamfax sender. It uses up their toner and ties up THEIR fax. ;^)

Re:TeleMarketing faxing

[tompaulco]

I doubt that the fax spammers utilize an actual phone line and an actual fax machine. More likely they have a pool of outgoing lines and they spool the fax to you from their servers, and incoming faxes are probably either ignored or dropped in a folder where they use no toner.
Your approach would probably work with the likes of an Office Depot or similar, though.

Important Number to Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever asked for my phone number by these places, I give: 202-456-1111.

That's the white house switchboard number, btw.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in the constitution are you awarded a right to privacy.

OT? Huh?

[rbird76]

moderators: the analogy here may be inaccurate, but it isn't offtopic. The "less restrictive" rules that telemarketers favored were also less effective - thus telemarketers wanted to allow people to use only countermeasures against them that don't work.

Whether you think gun possession helps or hurts crime is another story, but the analogy isn't OT.

Re:OT? Huh?

[Forbman]

...in a way, though, it is appropo. If you beat the shit out of someone trying to steal your wallet, you will probably end up in a civil court case and pay the ass monkey's medical bills.

Just like in some areas, if you shoot a home intruder, and he gets away, you're in deep doo-doo, both criminally and financially.

There has got to be some balance to this, though.

There was a guy in Blaine, WA, in the late 80's, who got tired of his mail box being M-80'd. So he took to sitting outside on Fri and Sat nights, with his trusty shotgun. Sure enough, someone came by to blow up his mail box, and he shot at them. Well, he killed one of the kids, and he did some time in Monroe (a Washington prison).

So, yes, home invasion, justified (in my book). Rural mail box, not justified.

The clerk just hung up...

[prozac79]

I can only imagine how this got to the Supreme Court to begin with. I think it went something like this:

[Ring, ring]
Clerk: "Hello, Supreme Court clerk's office, Daron speaking"
Operator: "Hello sir, please don't hang up, but I would like to offer you a court case with a lot of free speach implications"
Clerk: "Uh, no than"
Operator: [Cutting him off] "This is a once-in-a-lifetime case that will only be valid for a limited time only. We will even though in an RIAA copyright case, absolutely free! That's two Supreme Court cases for the price of one."
Clerk: "No thank you, we already have enough court cases here. We don't need another."
[Click]

I like getting calls from telemarketers

[TiggertheMad]

I get to fuck with them to no end, and waste their time.

Last one I got was from Earthlink, trying to sell me high speed internet service. Some Indian guy who only spoke b+ level English tried to sell me something I already have:

Indian: Do you have a computer?

Me: (yelling) Dear, do we have a computer? (pause)
yes, we have a TRS-80. Will your Internet work with that?

Indian: What operating system do you use?

Me: Apple Basic.

Indian: Oh yes, no problem. Would you like out anti-virus, spam blocker, and popup blocker for $10 extra?

Me: No, I like SPAM(tm), it's great cooked. And I've already had my flu shot this year.

(After 10 minuets of this sort of sillyness)

Me:By the way, what is this 'Internet' thing you keep mentioning?

You can try to pick up telemarketers who call (guy or girl, doesn't really matter), act like an idiot, act interested and accidentally drop the phoe a lot, accuse the caller of racial slander, etc. This accomplishes two ends. You get to have a great time messing with people's heads and you waste their time, lowering the profitability of telemarketing overall. I *highly* reccomend it...

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[pixieluv]

lol, i have never had this problem and i get alot of take out and delivery. they are only asking for your number to be sure you come get your food if it has been sitting a bit or like someone said if the driver gets lost. i dont get any telemarketing calls on my phone, and like i said i get alot of delivery and take out with my number

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's my way of taking revenge on all the misdialled calls to my place demanding chicken fried rice ...

My number is disturbingly similar to the one to call when the city of New York issues you a ticket for a sidewalk in disrepair (very expensive and often issued unfairly). By that logic I should get to shoot every telemarketer in the kneecaps.

DNC DOS?

[DataMine]

So who is going to be the first person to write a distributed client to submit 000-000-0000 to 999-999-9999 to the DNC list.. Could this be considered a DOS attack?? :) Just a though

Re:DNC DOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Save some troube: add only
200-200-0000 to 999-999-9999

Why: because this excludes the invalid phone numbers.

Re:DNC DOS?

[DriedClexler]

I'd consider that to be more of a DODS attack - Denial of Dis-service!

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell em to fuck off, I do every time they ask.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Buy won't allow it (I tried). You have to give a valid exchange... (not 555). You _could_ make one up, but then your poor made up number is going to get their calls. That is not right either.

Re:Let's end the other BS... trying to in Canada

[andymac]

Slightly off-topic, but in Canada, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") (link here) came into effect on Jan 1, 2004. No organization is allowed to solicit your personal information without clearly showing you their privacy policy which must outline what is done with the data (how it's stored, managed, if it leaves the company's hands, the country, etc.). You have the right to say "No thanks" when the clerk at SportMart asks for your phone number, ditto when the clerk at Toys'R'Us when making a return. Sad things about this are 1) most Canadians don't even know about the act and 2) even less corporations know about it. All you fellow Canucks, next time you are making a purchase and they clerk asks for your phone number, say "No" and see what they do. Or better yet, ask the clerk what they need the info for, and what they intend to do with that information. Watch said clerk squirm and stammer ("Umm...ummm... I dunno"). Kinda cruel to the clerk, I s'pose but telling of the management of most Canadian corporations.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[The Queen]

Right on!

I like to take all the business reply postage-paid envelopes that I get from credit card companies, fill them with pages ripped out of fat-girl pr0n mags, and mail them in. I figure if they can send me piles of trash that offends me, I can return the favor.

If we ALL did that, boy do ya think we could cut down on junk mail?

Also like to Toy with TeleMarketers

[AmericanInKiev]

When he hung up with you, the same b+ Indian guy named oddly "Steve Thompson". Called to "confirm" all the details of my home morgage.

Me "So what does your mother call you.?" I love indian food, had it for lunch. Tell me more about where you live - do you live in Bamm?"

Him "So to check your address"

Me - I live in "Indian Trail" surely you know how to spell that.

He "Are you playing games here sir.

ME "You're the one who said your name is Steve Thompson, I'm not the one making things up here ..."

Generally - yes, tele,arketing should be made more costly.

BTW what is you opinion of Spamming drivers with placards on telephone poles?

AIK

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[FlopEJoe]

Meet Mr. Airhorn.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[aonifer]

I've never had my phone number sold to telemarketers, but I have had my mailing address sold. It really pissed me off, because I'd done a fair amount of work to get my name taken off of lists and one greedy, jackass pizza joint ruined it. Their pizza wasn't that great, either.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[jasonshortphd]

I have never had anyone refuse to do business with me because I wouldn't give them my phone number.

I stopped at a gas station off the Florida Turnpike a while back and the GAS PUMP asked me for my phone number! It would not accept my credit card without it, and would not allow me to skip it. The manager said it was for "security". Isn't that the same argument we got for the Patriot Act? Hmmm,...

Go figure...

[WaterBreath]

What an amazing discovery: "Free speech" doesn't mean the freedom to talk to whoever you want, about whatever you want, whenever you want, as often as you want, by whatever medium you want, and ignore the person's pleas to go away.

Re:Go figure...

[anthony_dipierro]

You're right. "Free speech" means the freedom to talk to whoever you want, about whatever you want, whenever you want, as often as you want, by whatever medium you want, as long as the person doesn't tell you to go away.

Re:Go figure...

[WaterBreath]

Of course. I guess I should have emphasized my last clause, as that was really the important part. It is amazing to me how so many people interpret their right to free speech as a right to an audience.

Re:Go figure...

[anthony_dipierro]

It is amazing to me how so many people interpret their right to free speech as a right to an audience.

I really don't think anyone is doing that.

Re:Go figure...

[WaterBreath]

You mean besides the businesses who were claiming that free speech means people shouldn't be able to stop them from calling?

I tend to think of my phone as an extension of my house. It is my property, and I should be able to tell people to stay away unless they have my invitation or a legal prerogative to be there (e.g. law officers). Much like I can put up a sign saying "No solicitors" or "No trespassers" on my property, I should be able to have a similar method of protecting the phone access to my home. What these businesses were demanding is not much different than the right to walk through my house if it's easier for them than going around the block.

Re:Go figure...

[anthony_dipierro]

It is amazing to me how so many people interpret their right to free speech as a right to an audience.

I really don't think anyone is doing that.

You mean besides the businesses who were claiming that free speech means people shouldn't be able to stop them from calling?

The right to call someone is not the same thing as the right to an audience. And no business is saying that people shouldn't be able to stop them from calling. They're simply saying that there shouldn't be a law against them calling.

I tend to think of my phone as an extension of my house. It is my property, and I should be able to tell people to stay away unless they have my invitation or a legal prerogative to be there (e.g. law officers). Much like I can put up a sign saying "No solicitors" or "No trespassers" on my property, I should be able to have a similar method of protecting the phone access to my home.

I tend to agree with this. The only real problem I have with this law is I believe the companies are forced to pay for the no call list. This is a bit unfair, like forcing me to pay to see whether or not you had a "no solicitors" sign. But that's not a huge deal, so for the most part I'm in favor of this law.

Re:Go figure...

[tompaulco]

The only real problem I have with this law is I believe the companies are forced to pay for the no call list
I wasn't aware they had to pay, but I'm sure it is not an insurmountable sum for these telemarketing companies to pay. Also, the government probably looks at the fee not as an income generator, but as a prod to maybe think about getting into a more legitimate line of business.

Re:Go figure...

[anthony_dipierro]

I wasn't aware they had to pay, but I'm sure it is not an insurmountable sum for these telemarketing companies to pay.

"Data for up to five area codes will be available for free. Beyond that, there is an annual fee of $25 per area code of data, with a maximum annual fee of $7,375 for the entire U.S. database." Sure, it's not a problem for large telemarketing companies. But the little guy is effectively shut out, and can't even call people who want telephone solicitations. In fact, "it's also against the law for a seller to call (or cause a telemarketer to call) any person whose number is within a given area code unless the seller first has paid the annual fee for access to the portion of the registry that includes numbers within that area code." (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncbiz alrt.htm) So I can't even answer an out-of-state newspaper ad for a contract sale without paying the govt for a useless list!

I mean, in theory, if someone tells you not to call them, even by placing their number on a list, then calling them is harassment. But the implementation of this law could use a lot of work to get my full support.

Also, the government probably looks at the fee not as an income generator, but as a prod to maybe think about getting into a more legitimate line of business.

Now that there's a do not call list, I'm not sure what's illegitimate about calling people who aren't on it.

Re:Go figure...

[tompaulco]

Now that there's a do not call list, I'm not sure what's illegitimate about calling people who aren't on it. Many prey on the meek, lonely and timid. Some people will buy their product just to get them off the phone.

Re:Go figure...

[anthony_dipierro]

Many prey on the meek, lonely and timid.

So guilt by association?

In any case, apparently exempt organizations can get the list for free, and any seller who only calls people with a pre-existing business relationship or prior authorization is exempt. So I just signed up for a copy of the list. I'll see in 3 days if I was accepted.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious: How did you find out (for certain) that it was that particular pizza place?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Spoing]

1. It appears that Radio Shack has learned their lesson. Last time I was in there the 'manager' (or that's what it said on his name tag) didn't ask me for anything other than method of payment. It was the best experience I've ever had in one of their stores.

While Radio Shack were the first and most obnoxious about asking for name/address/phone/blood type, they dropped the obnoxious push a few years ago. Now, I only get asked occasionally...can't think of the last time they asked. I do remember laughing at the time and not in an indearing way.

The trauma of saying "No" ... "I'll keep the reciept" ... "I'm paying cash...you know, CASH!" ... "Didn't I already say no?" probably still makes it seem like they have been pushy reciently.

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[HTH NE1]

What FTC should have done is to have a DO CALL LIST, in which telemarketer can only contact those on the list, and must delete every info for the client who are not in the list.

No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster. It would be seen as restricting speech to people who have not explicitly declared that they did not want it. It would not be people asserting their privacy rights over speech, it would be them waiving it and restricting speech in absentia of the waiver.

And phone calls are more traceable than e-mails, especially for telemarketers who need banks of callers who can't all be using disposable pre-paid cellular phones, unlike spammers who can be a single individual getting new access and zombified systems whenever he wants. (And with zombified systems, he can even comply with his ISP's e-mail volume restrictions because it is the zombies that amplify the volume for him.)

Because of the illegal actions employed by spammers, spamming needs to be made illegal outright. That's simply not going to happen for telemarketing; its lobby has too much legitimacy.

I dunno about you...

[WebCowboy]

...but if the phone rings when my sweetheart and I are enjoying out private time we ignore it and continue enjoying each other. I'd work on your skills in the sack if I were you and the phone ringing was of more importance to you than nookie.

Anyways, I'm surprised the judge even considered the telemarketer's case--It really isn't a free speech issue at all IMHO. The DNC list doesn't restrict what you may say, it merely restricts how you may deliver your message in order to protect the privacy of individuals.. They can still rent billboards, advertise on TV, run newspaper and radio ads, etc etc. Unless they can make a case that their message is more important than privacy (say, public safety, criminal investigation or election information) then they have no case.

They have no more right to solicit via telephone than they have to walk up and down a residential street at 2 AM with a bullhorn yelling "GET YER CITIFINANCIAL MASTERCARD HERE FOLKS!!! ONLY TWO PERCENT INTRODUCTORY AAAYYEEE PEEEE AHRRRRRR!". They are both equally disruptive to personal lives, and the free speech argument is flimsy at best. You can take you message public and that's your right, but you cannot use such agressive tactics to FORCE you message on others and argue it is your fundamental right without a damn good reason.

Re:I dunno about you...

[jcr]

I'm surprised the judge even considered the telemarketer's case

Well, a judge really does have to take most cases, even if they don't pass the giggle test. Even scum like the telemarketers are entitled to take their shot at convincing a judge to give in to their unreasonable demands.

-jcr

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[pjt33]

What's your phone number doing in your credit card record?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

my preferred number is (911) 911-9111.

Similar effect, and, a bonus $500 fine for them for calling it without a real emergency on hand. Although I suppose for some telemarketers, lighting themselves on fire would be an improvement in their day.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[gphinch]

Personally I just give my work phone number in those situations. It goes to a receptionist, and if it's legitimatly important (ie: problem with payment) I'll get it. Otherwise they'll get a polite but stern "fuck off"

Re:Bullshit. From EPIC

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The question is did you read and unerstand the subject yourself before saying the Patriot act is all find and dandy? Apparently not.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

... where, exactly, did your stash of fat chick pr0n come from?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they do very often here. It's just that they typically use the phone number so that they can validate an order and have a contact you if the driver gets lost. Often times it's also used as a demographic tool ("Ah, a lot of people with 245 exchange... We should send the same coupons to the other exchanges that we sent to that area."); or unique key that can be sorted and searched on and have the other information already attached to it (so that we they don't have to retype "the house with the green fence, go to side door ring the bell three times and then walk to front to meet the person because ....").

And, back to one of the topics of the parent of this thread was complaining about... The reason why the political parties can still call is that they are non-profit. A lot of arts groups can also... keep in mind that most states have legislation that ensure they keep their own DNC/TOL lists (the difference is typically DNC is just Don't Call, and TOL is don't call or mail).

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the credit card company's CEO is into that?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[hackstraw]

This usually gets a negative response of "sir, I need your phone number to complete the sale."

Being that they will not be upfront and honest with you about why they need your phone number or what they are going to do with it, I believe its OK to exercise your free speech and lie to them. Its easy and fun! You can tell them:

1) I don't have a phone number. They cannot confirm nor deny this, nor require you to spend money on a telephone so that you can buy goods and services from some companies with stange business practices.

2) Tell them your only phone number is a cell phone and/or business phone where you are charged for incoming calls and are not willing to pay for unwanted and/or unnecessary calls to your phone.

3) Give them the old xxx-555-yyyy phone number. Most clerks are too stupid to know that all 555 numbers are invalid. Even if they do pick up on it, they get paid the same if their form gets filled in with factual information or not, and probably could care less.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[pjt33]

You can get away with it if you're a bunny.

What about SPAM.

[Vague but True]

The telemarketers argued that the list violated their commercial free-speech rights

What about SPAM. Isn't the Can-SPAM act doing the same thing to spammers.

For the love of God people, all of this "you can't step on my rights" bull is for the birds.
Telemarketers make money by scamming people, just like spammers. They are the same(except some telemarketers use inmates to make the calls)....Did everyone catch that. Some Telemarketers use inmates in prison to place the calls to you. So you are giving your PERSONAL info to a convicted felon...just in case you didn't know.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Bob McCown]

I did that over the weekend at Sears, attempting to buy some tools. They wanted my phone number, and I said "I dont want to give that out" The cashier blanked, paused, and had to call over a supervisor. She mumbled something to the supervisor, who poked at the screen for a bit, and said to her "OK, all set", then to me "Whats your phone number" I said, again, that I dont want to give it out. Supervisor paused, looked at me, and said "We need your phone number" I said "not for a cash transaction you dont". She reiterated she did, so I said "thanks anyway", turned around and walked away, leaving $70 some odd worth of tools on the counter.

Stop fooling yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is going to win, and by a significant margin.

Why do you think the Dems are getting so whiny? I mean they had to basically manipulate a reputable poll (Gallup) by including all the unlikely voters to even come up with a tie in the latest poll. It's all downhill from here, too.

The reason the SCOTUS justices haven't retired is mainly because of politics - during the first 2 years of the Bush administration the Senate was deadlocked and that jerkoff turncoat Jeffords went and screwed everything up. So basically they weren't going to retire then with the 'consent' part of advise and consent not a sure thing. Similarly, even though the Repubs have a slim majority in the Senate now, it isn't enough to pass filibuster and it includes such limp-wristed Republicans as Claiborne Pell of RI and Olympia Snowe of ME. Umm, they don't inspire confidence.

So, rather than lose on a SC nominee, or have to tolerate a watered down loser like Souter, they are looking for significant coattails in '04. This is the best year for that in the Senate in the next 6, seeing as the '98 midterms were a good one for the Democrats. If the Republicans pick up 2 or 3 seats they have a decent shot of ramrodding through a few Scalia-like justices to really shake things up.

Re:Stop fooling yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Rehnquist is 75, Stevens is 80, and Ruth Bader Gindburg has been undergoing cancer treatment. They are the three most likely to retire.

I think Bush is going to win, but it's not anywhere near a done deal. It is way too risky for a judge that wants to retire to wait for the next presidential term.

A nominee needs only a majority in the Senate to be approved. So, if one of them wanted out, this would have been the time to do it.

Personally, I think they consider Bush to be too far right and don't want him appointing their replacement. I can only imagine what Supreme Court justices think of Bush's blurring of the lines between church and state, and proposed constitutional amendments to "preserve marriage".

But, what the hell do I know, I was predicting two would be gone by 2002.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[mlong]

I hadn't been in Best Buy for over 5 years. Last week a power supply went out and had to get a replacement asap so BB was the only option.

During checkout the girl asked me for my phone number and, as I usually do when asked by any store, gave my fax number. Sure enough she said that the number was incorrect which had to mean that they were checking phone numbers against the credit card record.

The last 3 times I have bought anything at Best Buy I have given them my work fax number and they took it.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[spikedvodka]

here's the obligitory sexist comment:

I was buying a gift card at best buy for my father in law, and the cashier was kind of cute. She of course asked for my phone number to which my response was "How about you give me yours, and I'll call you instead"... That shut her up nicely

yeah, I know one of these days my big mouth will get me in trouble

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[dschuetz]

I've pretty much giving up going to best buy ('cause I don't appreciate being searched as I leave the store, but that's another rant). Last spring I wanted to buy an XM radio (I think they were having a promotion or something), and Circuit City was out. So I swallowed my pride and went to Best Buy.

The jerk at the cash register was adamant about wanting my phone number. He said it was "for XM" to which I replied "then I'll give my number to XM, but not to you." I finally gave him a fake number, which was rejected. He ended up pulling up the record for some other customer (maybe a name that stood out from earlier in the day) and used that number instead.

What I should do, actually, is say "Okay, I'll give you my number, but I'm also requiring that this not be used as exemption for the national DNC list. Put me on your do not call list immediately." I figure, the cashier is an authorized representative of the company (hell, he's wearing the stupid shirt and name tag), so that makes my request fully legal. Any telemarketing that results from the sale is in violation of the DNC law and subject to fine.

Maybe if we explain *that* at checkout, they'll stop asking ('cause none of them want to be responsible for opening their employer to a $10,000 liability).

In cases where I recognize a need for someone to call me (like, say, to tell me when something's just come into stock) I invariably give my work number.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[3terrabyte]

Good for you. I'm surprised we're even having this conversation. People, you should never be afraid to raise your voice. It's your money, and you're in the position of power.

These are usually minimum wage positions, and they have no desire to piss anyone off. If you don't want to be beligerent, telling them that you just moved there and don't have a phone # set up yet. And NEVER believe them when they say, "oh, it's just for our records, we'll never call." NOT TRUE.

When we moved last year, I give my home phone number to absolutely no one. (Family excluded, although sometimes...)

Any legitimate place that needs my number, (rentals, credit cards, everything) I only give my work number. This screens out any crap, and the one breach I've had so far, I was able to scream at them about calling me at work.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[tompaulco]

I agree. Political calls and charity calls should be outlawed as well. I get at least 10 calls a week from a company claiming to benefit State Troopers. Since it shows up on caller ID, I never answer, but it is still an interruption.
I don't see anywhere that free speech requires me to listen or to allow someone else to utilize my time and resources at their whim to promote their cause.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[buckeyeguy]

A local compu-retailer, MicroCenter, was one of the worst around here for bugging people for every last shred of information; it probably peaked around 10 years ago when I picked up some programming mag in their book section, got out my cash at the register, and the guy asked me the twenty questions.

I said, "Why?"

He said, "for uh, returns."

I said, "OK, so if the magazine BREAKS, you can verify that I own it by my name, address and phone number. Great." Flopped the mag on the counter and left.

I hear they don't do that anymore, but it doesn't much matter to me... I took my business elsewhere.

Blocking unwanted callers

[coulbc]

I have the evil Verizon as my Telco. I lived in area where Call Intercept was available. It worked pretty well at stopping Telemarketers for a while. They began to work around this issue by showing 800 numbers when they called. This allowed them to slip by the first line of defense. So I went ahead and got a caller ID modem and got CallerId from Ascendis Software. This allowed me to hang up on those 800 numbers. Life was good. Then, I had to move to new place only 10 minutes from where I was. I discovered Verizon had merged with GTE around 2000 or so and never upgraded the Central Office in the new area. So call intercept was not available in the new area. The day I moved in to the new place, I was slammed by people selling security systems, painting, re-modeling, etc. I promptly added my new numbers to the do not call list and configured CallerId to block this crap. It's a bloody war trying to stop these bastards.

Pre-DNC list

[Spoing]

Before the DNC list, I'd ask them not to call even using the magic phrase...and they still called.

With the DNC list, no problems!

If the telemarketing industry wanted anyone to take the self-regulation claims seriously, they would have honored in spirit not just the letter of the old laws. Instead, they weaseled around it; "OK, you're on the do not call list for company X!" [2 minutes] "Hi! I'm calling from company Y!". I have no sympathy.

Re:Pre-DNC list

[NerveGas]

Before the DNC list, I'd ask them not to call even using the magic phrase...and they still called.

My magic phrase has always been "I'm sorry, I don't do business with companies that call me on the telephone."

It works like magic. It's not rude, so they don't put your number back on the list to spite you. And it tells them immediately that they're not going to make ANY money off of you, so their incentive to keep calling is completely removed. It's been terrific.

steve

Re:Pre-DNC list

[Spoing]

1. My magic phrase has always been "I'm sorry, I don't do business with companies that call me on the telephone."

Didn't work for me...neither phrases like that nor the legally binding phrases where a violation costs the telemarketer $500 per incident. I'd be 'dropped' from one list (company X) and appear on another (company Y).

With the national DNC list, I don't get ANY solicitation calls.

Short term memory loss

[opos]

It is useful to remember that our government consists of three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The Judicial Branch, that ruled on the do not call list is not the same bunch that brought us the Patriot Act (Legislative Branch). Sometimes, the checks and balances in Washington even work.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the exact same thing. There is a reason why that pussy is on my Foes list. He is just here to be contrary.

Re:Bravo for the Supreme Court... this time around

[Reverberant]

Telemarketers demand your time in a more immediate fashion, and with some of them able to stay on the line until you've held the switch hook down for 10 seconds, they are far more capable of interfering with other communications than junk mail does with other correspondence. (emphasis mine)

This reminds me of a story: a couple of years ago, I was having a problem with my left ear - my hearing was screwed-up and my balance was way off. The doctor's couldn't figure out what was wrong, so finally one neurosurgeon speculated that it could be a brain tumor. I had a head CT, and the doctor told me that he would call me the next day with the results

Of course once the doctor mentioned tumor, I was terrified. I sat by the phone on the following day waiting for the doctor's call. The phone rings, and I pick up.

"Hello there, do you have a subscription to xxxx newspaper"?

I politely respond that I'm not interested in a subscription and that I need to keep the line clear because I'm expecting a call from a doctor. "Ohh that's too bad" was the response. Then "well we have the following special, blah blah blah."

At that point I hung up, but to this day I'm still shocked that the caller didn't have the decency to cut short her spiel. Oh well.

If the telemarketers aren't going to respect my need to keep the line free, I'm glad the government will force them to do it.

(Lucky for my that it wasn't a tumor, I have "atypical Meniere's Disease.")

My bugbear

[pommiekiwifruit]

Now I am being rung up by computers with recorded messages! I am sure that was illegal last time I looked. They tend to be hawking premium rate phonelines for "winning prizes". Its only started this year.

Good source for working bogus phone numbers

[glomph]

The Rejection Hotline!
Local numbers all over the US!

http://rejectionhotline.com/numbers_and_cities.p hp ?age=666

Re:Good source for working bogus phone numbers

[De Lemming]

From their site: "Appropriate vs. Inappropriate Uses of the Rejection Hotline. To use as a fake phone number for online registration forms, in stores, or to give to telemarketers: NO. We heard people were doing that with the Rejection Hotline, so that's why we created: The Telemarketers Nightmare."

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[tompaulco]

I don't mind the snail spam so much. It beats paying higher natural gas bills in the winter. Though the credit cards are probably not good for the environment.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[tompaulco]

Give 'em your number. Your full number, starting with the country code ... of North Korea. They won't call.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[tompaulco]

Most clerks are too stupid to know that all 555 numbers are invalid.
They'll probably ask if you're from Hollywood.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Steve B]

What regulations existed before that let me get off their list?

The reason the Do Not Call list exists is that telemarketers systematically sabotaged the options that previously existed.

Prior to the global DNC list, you had the right to insist that your number be removed from a specific company list... and telemarketers deliberately hung up when they heard the start of such a request, and if that didn't work they interpreted "specific company list" in an artificially narrow manner that allowed other divisions of the same company to keep calling.

People also purchased devices (such as the TeleZapper[tm]) for protecting your phone from automated dialers... and telemarketers developed cracks to defeat them.

They made their bed; now they can lie in it.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[tompaulco]

Search your spam mailbox for 809 and then give the retailer that number. (some 809 numbers are a common hoax by scammers in bed with Dominican Republic and British Virgin Islands telephone companies)

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

It isn't, particularly. By having a phone plugged into a public network, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited calls. This is no different than having an address is an implicit acceptance of door-to-door or mail communications.

You are free to retract that acceptance, but you need to do so explicitly, either to a specific individual, as to them, or as to broad groups of people by providing sufficiently good notice in advance. (e.g. a no trespassing sign)

After all -- you don't have to pick up the phone or even have a phone. Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door. Standing on your porch, asking to talk to you is not, as a rule, trespassing.

(Plus of course, your analogy opens yourself up to abuse -- if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right.)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[FanaticalDesperado]

This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I see two issues arising in the implementation:

1. You have to go out and buy fat girl porn. That will only encourage the fat girl porn industry.

2. You have to look at fat girl porn to make sure you send them the pages with the most revolting material.

That's a higher price than I am willing to pay.

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[Anonymous Coward]

And phone calls are more traceable than e-mails, especially for telemarketers who need banks of callers who can't all be using disposable pre-paid cellular phones, unlike spammers who can be a single individual getting new access and zombified systems whenever he wants. (And with zombified systems, he can even comply with his ISP's e-mail volume restrictions because it is the zombies that amplify the volume for him.)

Unfortunately, phone calls are only as traceable as the technology that enables them. When networks start switching to use voice over IP-based 'phones', you can bet spammers are going to use zombie machines to dial out to actual customers. It will still require human interaction AI to pull off scams, but the harrassments are never going to end.

nonprofits

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, do-not-call list is a good thing and it's good that the ruling of the lower court to keep it is not overrruled.

That wasn't the subject of the ruling but my understanding of the original law is that it covers only calls on behalf of for-profit corporations while there is no way to block calls on behalf of non-profits. Is that right? The whole thing is about privacy and choice. So why won't it allow to opt-in or opt-out from non-profit calls too?

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[Steve B]

What FTC should have done is to have a DO CALL LIST, in which telemarketer can only contact those on the list, and must delete every info for the client who are not in the list.

No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster.

Why not? I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent". The latter is well-settled law.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[suwain_2]

If this was anything but the police, it'd be a really good, really funny idea.

I would *not* mess with the police. Not because I think they'll come shoot you or anything crazy, but because their job is kind of important. True, it's not the emergency number you're giving out. But you're still tying up one of their dispatchers, who could otherwise be handling a real emergency, not handling calls for you.

Give out the number for Domino's or something, and it's a good idea. If it was something like SCO's number, even better. But please don't endanger my safety by wasting police dispatchers' time handling the calls you don't want.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In retrospect, I noticed that the U-Haul "rep" really didn't care about the ph# requirement, except to cover his own ass, and that I could probably have even gotten away with 617-123-4567.

I was a bit flustered myself at the time, with a flight out (family emergency) in a few hours and two boxes to get shipped before then. Kind of ironic, that the brain shuts down when you need it most. Although I do tend to "stand up for my principles" first, I don't generally have much objection to lying if necessary. Except that my girlfriend will actually chide me for lying on those forms (!!) -- I hope that my reprogramming efforts pay off soon.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[KarmaOverDogma]

I agree with your sentiments, but here are three (probably obvious but I just have to say them anyway) points:

1) Do you honestly expect politicians/gov't administrators to make themselves accountable to the laws/regulations which they pass? This hypocritical priniciple of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do seems to have a direct relationship proportional to the population which is being represented/served; the greater the population, the more the hypocrisy. If "political" calls were made to be DNC enforceable it would lead to the issue of how one defines "political," a process I believe would be subject to even more corruption. This brings me to point 2.

2) If the Gov't did decide to include political speech as DNC enforceable then I believe that the courts would be more likely to say that the DNC list is an unconstitutional limit on free speech because of "intereference with the democratic process" or some other such reasoning (do recall that many judges are elected and not appointed...). Again, the more speech the DNC disallows the greater the likelihood of it being struck down by the courts.

3) Consider the problems that could arise from having an even more powerful DNC list, such as bill collectors not being able to pursue deadbeats, your electric company not being able to call about a hazard that requires your immediate attention (the need to cut power, for example). These extreme examples are meant to illustrate a point about the difficulty of policy formulation.

With all that being said, I do agree consumers should have the option of designating their phone (land line and/or cel) as strictly personal use only. That means no fundraising, no politics, no surveys, just personal use, except for opt-ins which would require a SIGNATURE ON FILE, with exemptions like the ones I allude to above (still there would be room for abuse...). If these people/busniness/organizations want to speak to (bother) us, then they can pay the postage to mail things. We could then "evalutate" (throw away) this written speech just like the rest of the unwanted mail which we receive and get to process at our convenience, not theirs.

.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Spoing]

Microcenter still asks (Virgina store). Most of the time they aren't pushy, and never as bad as RS at it's worst, though sometimes they do get annoying.

Out with the old.

[Doc Ruby]

No, that's good for democracy, especially in the US. What's bad for democracy is the unaccountability of the Supremes, in jobs for life with practically no chance of recall, especially if only on grounds of "injustice". It would be better if they just got 20-year terms, with their salaries voted by Congress, and exclusion from any other compensation than their salaries/pensions. Another excellent safeguard would be "Survivor" rules, where every presidential term gets to replace one of the Supremes, selected for retirement by Congress, and voted in by Congress from presidentially selected nominees.

Re:Out with the old.

[Dravik]

Congress already sets the pay scale of the supreme court. Also a safeguard not used often is the power of the congress to set limits on what the judical branch can review.

Re:Out with the old.

[GMFTatsujin]

Wow. It sounds to me like you advocate populating the Supreme Court with individuals who have a vested interest in abdicating their authority to both the executive AND legislative branches so they can keep their cushy government jobs. Especially with the Survivor rules.

It strikes me that determining the function of a branch of government by basing it on TELEVISION is kind of, well, dumb. Or at least, short-sighted.

What makes the Supreme Court work is that you've really got to fight your case long and hard to even get on their radar. Review, review, review, that's the key. Besides, I'd hate to slog through a decade of lawsuits over a vital point of justice just to find that the President against whom I may have voted had stacked the judicial deck the day before.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:Out with the old.

[Doc Ruby]

What, like Clarence Thomas? We need turnover. We're stuck with this schmuck for the next 30-40+ years. Congress represents the people, we should be picking these people more often, if only for people more in touch with actual life in the actual real world, outside their hermetic court. And what does TV have to do with this, more than it has to do with anything else in our society?

Re:Out with the old.

[Forbman]

Yes, but he's only one. Now, if there were 5 more like him, then it would be bad. But there's not.

He is one voice of 9. So he believes in "natural law". He's a balance to the more self-interpretive of the judges. They hear the most challenging cases. They should be slightly isolated, because their job demands it, for better or worse. Their goal is to try and protect the Constitution.

Re:Out with the old.

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, he's 11% of the court, and he's dangerous. There's Rhenquist, who's so infirm that he can't even keep his drool in his mouth anymore, yet he's hung in there to protect the corporate cabal over which he presides. Scalia would have quit in petulance if he'd allowed Gore's victory to put him in the White House; instead we'll get more backup for his Halliburton crony he chose instead. That "try and protect the Constitution" is their smokescreen for allowing things like "intent" to take over the criteria for deciding guilt and liability; an unimpeachable basis for mindreading and arbitrary justice. These creeps believe in nothing but the tissue of rationalizations they've evolved for protecting their corporate sponsors. It's no mere coincidence that they've all been at the bench too long, in one way or another. We need to institutionalize a means of safely preserving their uberimportant egos, while shuttling them out of their positions.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[The Slashdot Guy]

I know giving out a zip code is harmless. Those that ask for it are getting the backlash from too many people asking me for information.

mo' narch!

[Doc Ruby]

Who gets to be this "monarch"? The military conqueror? Their numbskull nephew? Pick me! Pick me! I promise to be a Philosopher King.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[3terrabyte]

Well, who would want to buy a 100 person list? Or is Canada up to 200 now?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[DavidTC]

You should have said, 'Oh, wow, you mean I can return this magazine? How long do I have, a month?' and then duly walked back in a few weeks later and tried to return the magazine.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Steve B]

By having a phone plugged into a public network, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited calls.

By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.

Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door.

The telemarketing industry has done precisely that (developed and used techniques for evading protective devices such as the TeleZapper[tm]). Through such actions, they made the Do Not Call list necessary.

if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right

Nonsense. It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts and that individuals do not. If your attempt to equate the two without this context were valid, it would also be acceptable for men to slide dollar bills into the clothing of any woman they met on the street (making no distinction between women in general and strippers who solicit such tips).

Cancel the land line's

[ThoreauHD]

I've noticed that cell phones have a harder time with being scalped than land lines. They are also very easy to change now that the law allows for phone number transferrs between telco's.

But if you are stupid enough to hand out your phone number to anyone at all, or trust a company that sells off your info, then you get what you reap. No getting around being a appeasing idiot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[ConceptJunkie]

...the Right of Free Speech does not mean the right to force yourself to be heard.

By their logic, I should be able to go cap a few telemarketers, and it would be legal because of my right to Bear Arms.

By their logic...

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[HTH NE1]

I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent".

A printing press is not generally accessible to the public, on private property, and its use consumes paper, ink, power, and wear on expensive equipment.

A telephone is on a generally publically accessible network (has no access controls over whom can cause it to ring) and its use does not consume paper, ink, you aren't charged for its power consumption, and is practically disposable equipment. It also has common-carrier status.

A facsimile (fax) machine already has its legislation against junk faxes.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, you do such a good job of proving the US's stupidity.

Not a good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If the idjits want telemarketers to call (and I sure don't), let the dummies talk to each other.

2) We don't want to give the telemarketers any reason to argue that the list is bad, ineffective, not representative of what the people on it want, etc. lest they come up with a new, possibly successful, lawsuit.

Besides, it betrays your own cause. Just like the people who bombed abortion clinics were low-down filthy traitors to the pro life position, it does nothing whatsoever to help your cause and merely hurts its legitimacy. Now, it's obviously not as bad (after all, you kill no one), but it's still unhelpful at the very least...

Beneviolence, a new word?

[bareman]

Beneviolence
1: Acts of violence committed by your team.

Maleviolence
1: Acts of violence committed upon your team.

Just used it from Safari 1.2.3 / OS X 10.3.5

[Anonymous Coward]

Just used it from Safari 1.2.3 / OS X 10.3.5

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[Steve B]

A telephone is on a generally publically accessible network (has no access controls over whom can cause it to ring)

The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[dkleinsc]

As a resident of Lakewood, OH, I'm pissed off that you've now distracted my police department with calls for John Gaughan. Couldn't you have picked something else, like, say, Ashcroft's office?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you only have to do it once. Then just scan it in on your computer, and print out a stack onto precut slips of paper. Put them in a box for safe keeping and just take them one by one out as you need them.

People just don't understand.

[jbarr]

The U.S. Constitution's provision for free speech gives the right to speak freely, but it does not guarantee the right to be heard. There is a HUGE difference there.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[brianosaurus]

Ending the other bullshit is easy. Its a "DO NOT CALL" list. Its not a "Do not call me as much" list. The "restricting free speech" argument is bogus.

By putting my number on that list, I'm informing all telemarketers (including the political and charity ones) that I don't want them calling me, that I will rudely hang up if they do call me, and that I'll be annoyed with their organization for calling me.

If Jerry's Kids call me up during dinner asking for money, I'll stop contributing. If a politician calls me, I won't vote for them.

The particular message isn't what bothers me. The phone ringing and having to tell the other end to "fuck off and don't call me anymore" is what bothers me.

I don't understand how telling charities and politicians ahead of time that I, personally, do not want them (or their opponents!) calling me (but its fine with me if they call everyone else) restricts free speech. Not calling me gives them more time to call the people who will actually listen to their message.

If I go to a venue where George W is speaking, and I cover my ears the whole time, that does not restrict free speech. Why should my choosing to not receive his phone calls be any different?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I give out the number for the IRS.

Like Duh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it takes away telemarketers right to free speech, they abused that right and now it has been taken away. Lesson learned? I doubt it, telemarketers are a rare breed on the ignoramous scale.

What about my natural right to be left alone?

[c0d3h4x0r]

According to CNN Money, the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of telemarketing companies, which were claiming that the do-not-call list violated their free speech rights.

There is a basic human right that is missing from the U.S. constitution: my right to be left alone if I tell you to leave me alone. This right should trump all other rights. Sure, you may have the constitutional right to say whatever you want, but if I tell you to keep it away from me and my private property, you should have to honor that, period.

Re:What about my natural right to be left alone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Supreme Court has read the "right to be left alone" into the Ninth Amendment. It didn't start out that way, but most privacy-related activities that come in court cases get judged through previous Ninth Amendment-related cases.

IANAL, but I am a political science major.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.

By having a phone connected to the public networks, you're accepting unsolicited ATTEMPTS to call you. I.e. people can freely dial your number. What you do once they place the call -- pick up, ignore it, send it to some sort of automated doohicky -- is up to you; they can't force you to do a particular thing, though they can initiate the attempt.

This is akin to people being allowed to send you mail by default, but your not having to read it. Or people being allowed to knock on your door by default, but your not having to answer it. And so forth.

The telemarketing industry has done precisely that

Quite false, until the day comes when telemarketers can magically cause my phone's handset to levitate off the hook. They cannot force you to answer. There is no trepass. Only a request for you to answer, which is not any different than someone asking you at your door if they may enter.

It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts

Which brings us back into the realm of implicit intent. Why do people publish their home phone numbers? Because they must want to receive unsolicited phone calls. If they don't want that, then they are free to a) not have a phone, b) not publish the number anywhere, c) explicitly tell people not to call them (e.g. by saying so to individuals, or by saying so to the world via a DNC list).

Don't Talk About Constitutional Rights...

[virg_mattes]

...until you understand them. Nowhere in the Constitution are you "awarded" rights of any kind, and the document itself says you don't need to be "awarded" rights, you already have them. The Constitution protects the rights you're assumed to have already. The right to privacy is protected by (among other things) the Fourth Amendment. Notice the use of "protected", not "granted". You have the right to privacy, and the Constitution protects that right.

These are the two parts you need to understand. The Fourth Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...and the Ninth Amendment...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

These describe how the right to privacy already exists, and how the Constitution prevents laws that abrogate that right.

Virg

Re:Don't Talk About Constitutional Rights...

[jcr]

Well, to be a bit more precise.. The constitution neither grants nor protects our rights. It cedes certain of our rights to the government, allowing for the formation of the government. Ultimately, our rights depend entirely on our willingness to fight for them when they are infringed or threatened.

-jcr

Just a small question:

[GMFTatsujin]

Um...

WHERE?

And why post anonymously about it? Is somebody tapping your line or something?

Eliza @ Phone

[cavac]

Given the current advances in Voice-Recognition and Text2Voice, why not program an Eliza-Bot to talk to sales scum on the phone? Maybe give it a heavy foreign accent to somewhat hide obvious problems with the voice recognition and A.I.?

An Eliza-like bot should do the trick - just responds to a bunch of key-phrases whenever the sales-guy stops talking and for the rest: the good old "Tell me more" should work just fine.

Just make sure the bot never responds with a definit "yes" or "no" but stays vague enough so "Mr. Sales" doesn't get his contract...

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Steve B]

What you do once they place the call -- pick up, ignore it, send it to some sort of automated doohicky -- is up to you

You've just conceded my argument by admitting that bypassing the TeleZapper[tm] constitutes an illicit intrusion.

Re:FP!

[Anonymous Coward]

> you are likely to be eaten a grue

If he's the one eating the grue, I'm definitely not laughing at him. I'm laughing with him.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that would make you doing a good job proving Canada's stunted sense of humor.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take off the tin foil hat.

NO! Do not under any circumstances take off the tin foil hat! One second is all it takes for the mind control satellite rays to get in, then all is lost!

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Spoing]

"sir, I need your phone number to complete the sale."

OK, 555-1212.

Wow

[joranbelar]

Where's my +5 Buffer Overflow mod? :)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a counterexample. You left, they didn't make you leave. You should have stand there and pressed the case. Get the store manager.

Chief Justice Warren Berger said it best....

[iamcf13]

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We
categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material
into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one
has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the
outer boundary of every person's domain."
-- Chief Justice Warren Berger, U.S. Supreme Court

Quote from UXN Spam Combat

Although this decision was based on the postal mail system, the principle should hold with ANY communications medium. As for me, I simply leave my phone unplugged when I am not using it--the BEST application of 'Do-Not-Call' I can think of short of not having a phone at all.

Confirmation

[phorm]

Around here they used to do it as confirmation. Sometimes the delivery guy would get lost and need directions, or other times if they suspected it was a prank order they might call back before making 12 orders of hotwings and 8 pizzas to deliver at 1-2-3 Nowhere St...

in Norway...

[tuxette]

The Norwegian Data Inspectorate is the entity that actually enforces the do-not-call lists; the registry at Brønnøysund has nothing to do with this.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of telemarketing companies here that don't respect the do-not-call list. They don't care to follow them. They even complain because they have to buy updated lists (boo hooey hoo), though they can afford to give the executives multi-million NOK salaries. However, the telemarketers generally get away with unlawful telemarketing because too few people complain about violations to the Inspectorate. Without the formal complaints, the Inspectorate cannot do very much to resolve the problem.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

You know, you can just tell them, "declined" with a smile. No need to make up numbers. (although I do like the idea of cluttering their DB with junk data)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[rainman_bc]

Radio Shack's gotten sneakier. If you pay with plastic, they look up your name in their database using the name on your plastic. Sneaky bastards.

Heard on phone lines across the US

[955301]

We're sorry. You're call did not go through. Please piss off and never try your call again.

I just hope this "business" sector rolls over and dies a peaceful death. There are more precise ways of finding people who might want to buy a product.

Carpet-bombers, be damned!

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

Not at all. It's your responsibility to have a good automated doohicky, so long as what they do is not fraudulent. I suspect that the problem here was that the doohicky sucked, and had gaping flaws in it (though feel free to supply facts about the situation, since I never heard of the thing you're mentioning).

For example, if you get junk mail in a handwritten envelope, you're more likely to open it than not. That's not fraudulent, but it did get by your inbuilt filter for junk mail.

OTOH, if there was a knock at the door, and you saw a person in an officious looking blue uniform, but it turned out to be the Fuller Brush man, then that's more likely wrongful.

When a telemarketing call's caller ID says that it is from your mother, and it's not, then that's fraudulent.

It is not incumbent on solicitors to make it easy for you to discern them, so long as they aren't being fraudlent about who they are.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[gcaseye6677]

The Do Not Call list is basically a No Trespassing sign. There's not much difference. People have specifically told companies they don't want sales calls. How can you argue that someone has the right to make these calls? As a side note, if telemarketers had not made numerous attempts to circumvent the operation of Caller ID, Telezapper, and other call avoidance techniques, the do not call list would probably not have been necessary. Only because the industry was so determined to call people that had made it clear they did not wish to be called were people demanding that the list be created. Nobody's rights are being violated here; peoples' rights are being preserved.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[PriceIke]

There's always 867-5309.

My sister Jenni has used it on many occasions to dismiss would-be suitors. She says most of them dutifully write it down and promise to call.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[cmdrwhitewolf]

I just give them my old BBS # instead, which laughably enough, is a some companies fax line now.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

No, I agree. My point was against the idea that merely dialing a call was unacceptably intrusive.

Still, while I personally like the DNC list, I admit that I am dubious. It is still some regulation of speech, and that shouldn't be treated lightly. Especially when you recall that pretty much everyone proposing regulations of speech have enjoyed life without that speech, that they generally regulated unpopular speech, etc. The enemy could be us, and so I take very seriously any challenge to the DNC list. The challengers, even if you hate 'em, might be right.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[PriceIke]

> I don't need the gov't to protect me all the time. It gives them to much power.

Very well said.

dereliction of duties

[DM9290]

It's very nice that privacy is becoming a little more important these days, at least with the state governments, but please don't try to rewrite history.


Actually the government does have important interests in safeguarding personal privacy.

The Patriot Act is a dereliction of duties.

Unconstitutional

[karniv0re]

The telemarketers are right. It violates their free speech rights, and it violates my freedom to have my privacy invaded. Damn it, what are they going to take away next? My freedom to have a SPAM filled inbox? I, for one, won't stand for it!

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[arminw]

Caller ID together with a good answering machine has totally ELIMINATED us being bothered by telemarketers even though we are not on the do not call list. If the call does not display from someone we like to talk to, then the answering machine takes it. Very few junk callers leave any message and those that do are easily ignored. If someone we do want to talk to whose number is not recognized, we can hear the first 10 seconds of the message they put on the anwering machine, we then pick up the phone (if we are around) and talk as we normally would. Since we instituted this system we have not talked to a single caller we did not wish any communications from. Our answering machine is an old Mac Classic which is used for that and receiving faxes only.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Hatta]

Any time he's wasting on the phone talking to a telemarketer is time he's not out busting pot smokers, activists, etc.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[arminw]

I give outfits that ask for our phone number our modem number, which we never answer because it never rings since there is no phone connected to it and it busy whens anyone uses the Internet.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[myov]

Even better:

1. when they ask for a voice line give them a fax number.
2. Get to know a fax broadcasting service. Offer to sell them a list of numbers (which just happen to be the incoming lines of telemarketers).

Nothing like squealing modem!

(using this trick in reverse... had to put up with some broadcaster faxing my home line, which does not have a fax, for two months)

Congress represents the people? ROFL (n/t)

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Aerion]

You can always try the old "My number is ninety-one fourteen thirty-six seven." And if they ask you why you're saying it like that, claim you're European or something.

Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work often, since most people realize when writing it down that something isn't quite right. It has a much higher success rate when you're reading it off to somebody who is dialing the number as you say it.

Not all can do that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all phones can be set to ring only when certain people call..

Re:Not all can do that...

[anthony_dipierro]

Not all TVs let you change from one channel to another without hitting all the channels in between.

Speech vs. Press

[HTH NE1]

The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].

That only potentially gets you a chance to sue them for usurping your affirmative choice of privacy, not a presupposition that all telephone subscribers prefer privacy over telemarketers' commercial speech. It still doesn't get you your Do Call List.

Though both enumerated in the First Amendment (among others), the intrinsic natures of speech and press afford them different protections.

Before the net, freedom of the press could only be exercised by those who could afford one (property law), but most everyone had the capability of speech, which is not tied to property. (It isn't even intellectual property and afforded copyright unless recorded in a fixed medium.)

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Le Marteau]

I've pretty much giving up going to best buy

I gave up on them because their store is so damned annoying (at least the one nearest me). They've always got some car-audio amplifier mega-ghetto-blaster tremendo-up-to 11 bass thumper box going "BOOM... BOOM... BOOM" playing some crap for the entire warehouse to 'enjoy'. I don't know how anyone can work there.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a joke.

Doesn't a list...

[WebCowboy]

..of people who do not want the calls that is enforced with fines essentially basically mean the intent is to restrict organisations from making calls? In other words, an effort to at least partially ban phone campaigns (those that are commercial in nature only as the US DNC list is set up now)?

I suppose not everyone will agree with me about exceptions for political campaigns--My opinion is that democracy is the cornerstone of the free world, and that if the citizenry disengage from the process (do not vote or make ininformed decisions) then government will become corrupt (corruption is already a growing problem in both American and Canadian govenrments). Given how politically apathetic most people on this continent are I think we need a little legislative nudge from time to time. In some countries they go so far as to require you by law to vote--I'd say that goes even further than I would go but it shows how important the process is to some nations.

Anyways, I'm not sure about US law, but requiring political campaigns during an election to abide by the same rules telemarketers have to in regards to the DNC list would conflict with the Elections Act of Canada, so the Elections Act would have to be amended or an exception for election campaigns would have to be included in the DNC list.

This would be analgous to the rules regarding "junk mail" right now (the paper kind, not the electronic kind). There is already a policy that Canada Post will not deliver unadressed admail to your mailbox if you affix a "no flyers" or similar such label on your mailbox, or contact Canada Post and file a formal request. Because of the elections act, an election brochure is exempt--Canada Post (and couriers? I'm not sure) must deliver them or fines can be livied against the delivery agent (Canada Post and/or the mail carrier personally).

I have worked on campaigns and have run into these rules before. Those who did not support our candidates views would call our offices and complain that they received "junk mail" from us and that he does not condone the delivery of junk mail. We had to explain that campaign material is not junk mail in the eyes of the law and that you must "opt-out" by contacting the source of the material directly (ie. call us). So to minimise aggravation and stay within the regulations we initially delivered to EVERY household in the riding and then only skipped those houses on future drops where residents personally requested for us to stop.

Note that these rules only apply during an official election campaign for registered candidates. Outside of an election everyone has to follow the rules, and during an election parties who are not official agents of registeres candidates must follow the rules ALL the time when endorsing or portesting a candidate (they also must comply with strict spending restrictions in the "gag law" which many say goes too far).

If there are rules about candidates rights during elections in the US that are similar, I can understand why an exception was made in the DNC list when it was set up.

Re:Doesn't a list...

[brianosaurus]

I completely understand your reasoning for the political exception, but I still don't agree with it. I agree that democracy is important, but I also believe that if I tell someone I don't want them to call me, they shouldn't call me.

That's what I don't understand. Why would someone want to make a phone call to me knowing that I don't want to receive it? I assure you that if a telemarketer calls my house, it will not be well received. So why call?

The legislation of a DNC list came about because so many people are fed up having the phone ring 10 times an hour for useless calls, and had no way to eliminate the problem on their own. Telemarketers wouldn't play fair, so the government had to get involved. (Of course politicians couldn't play fair either, so they put in a bullshit exemption for themselves, and "for the children").

Maybe if it had been easier to get off the lists, the government wouldn't have had to get involved. As it is I still pay the phone company $10/month to block those calls for me.

Either way, I don't understand how a tool that allows telemarketers (political or not) to be more efficient is a bad thing.

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[jcr]

Our answering machine is an old Mac Classic which is used for that and receiving faxes only.

Just curious: what's the name of the phone-answering app you're using on that machine?

-jcr (always interested in stories of Macs that keep going and going...)

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[jcr]

Ah, the TeleZapper.. Great little device for a couple of years there, wasn't it?

-jcr

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[waynelorentz]

they were checking phone numbers against the credit card record.

One of the Slashdot crowd's favorite online stores, Newegg, does this too.

I moved to a different city about six months ago, and didn't give the credit card company my new home number. Newegg wouldn't send me my stuff. Took weeks to straighten out because of Newegg's atrocious customer service.

I guess comparing credit card numbers with phone numbers is standard procedure now, so if you're a member of the tinfoil hat set, then you can't shop at Newegg.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[waynelorentz]

Personally I just give my work phone number in those situations. It goes to a receptionist, and if it's legitimatly important (ie: problem with payment) I'll get it. Otherwise they'll get a polite but stern "fuck off"

I need your receptionist.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[jcr]

Guess they don't need your money, or mine either..

-jcr

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[mistakenanonymity]

I was at a loss about how to prevent Amex from calling me. I explicitly requested a couple of times that they quit calling my phone (a cell # to boot), and they continued to do it. Finally I told them "Thank you for your continued interest in speaking with me. I must inform you, however, that further contact with me will be billed at the rate of $100 per minute and I will construe any further contact from this phone # as expressed consent to this billing arrangement. So please do not call me unless you intend to incur such charges." This resulted in a flustered and obviously supervisor-coached employee in haltingly stating that "it might take a couple weeks to get me off the list" and other lame excuses of that ilk. At any rate, I haven't received any calls since then....

Legal Signficance

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, thanks to all the people who pointed out that the Supreme Court did not "uphold," "affirm," or "back" anything. The Supreme Court gets over 5,000 petitions each year. Less than 100 are decided on the merits. In other words, file an appeal and there is a less than 2% chance the Supremes will review the case. So, when the Court decides not to hear a case, it's kind of like asking your friend what he thought of the most recent John Grisham novel. If he says he didn't read it, that pretty much ends the conversation.

But the appellate court decision that remains is significant. The key point is that the court rejected the argument of the direct marketers who said that if the government wants to restrict telemarketing calls it can't pick and choose. Either prohibit all or prohibit none. The Tenth Circuit said its okay to regulate commercial calls ("I've got some excellent vacation property for you . . . as long as you don't need sunlight") but not calls from charities ("Yes, the whales really do need your support") and politicians ("My opponent is a moron."). That was the interesting First Amendment issue.

How did the court reach this result? Four reasons: (1) it's a regulation of core commercial speech; (2) the regulation protects the home (=special status) against intrusion; (3) the program is entirely opt-in, with consumers exercising control (="stay out of my home!"); (4) the regulation does in fact serve a legitimate purpose (it works!)

That is the decision the Supreme Court today "let stand."

More at the EPIC web site:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Conspir8or]

> How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get? Buffalo Wild Wings asks when you order, Best Buy now asks when you buy something, we all know and love Shit Shack for what they used to do and probably still do, etc. They are asking for one reason and one reason only... To get your number so that they (and their subsidiaries) can call you even though you're on a DNC list.

Er, yeah. How hard is it simply to say "No"? If they persist, walk out. Simple and much easier on the blood pressure.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Xaoswolf]

I give out the number of people I don't like...

And I tell them to call all they want

Re:Let's end the other BS... trying to in Canada

[Xaoswolf]

I can understand wanting a phone number when taking returns, but I never understood why they needed your phone number for sales.

zip code maybe, but asking for phone numbers is just rediculous...

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Xaoswolf]

and in my mind, you posting to slashdot is the equivalent of raping 12 year olds...

I guess that's why it's a good thing that what happens in our minds has no basis in reality...

now if you don't mind, Mrs. Hilton is waiting, and we are going to have the best imaginary sex ever...

www.telemarketersnightmare.com

[CedgeS]

Not even close to goatse.cx, but http://www.telemarketersnightmare.com/ is half the idea already.

Current phone numbers

Massachusetts:
617-861-9507

New Hampshire:
603-413-3623

Rhode Island:
401-648-7950

New York:
212-660-4245

Washington:
206-888-5400

Florida:
321-485-0033
772-974-0041
786-743-0033

An amusing thought: Imagine the next person to get such a number after a service like this closes.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of Lakewood, OH, I'm pissed off that you've now distracted my police department with calls for John Gaughan. Couldn't you have picked something else, like, say, Ashcroft's office?

As a former resident of Lakewood, Ohio, I am happy to tie up the phone lines of the most racist police department I have ever had the displeasure to know. I hope they get a prank call for every time they pulled over one of my minority friends for bogus reasons just to harass them. Did you ever notice and black or female cops in Lakewood? I didn't think so.

Hurts women, minorities, disabled

[DriedClexler]

Telemarketers are disproportionately women, minorities, and/or disabled. This ruling will severely curtail the job opportunities available to society's most deserving of our help and kindness. Just something for you guys to think about in between strokes while you jerk off to the decision.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Forbman]

3) Consider the problems that could arise from having an even more powerful DNC list, such as bill collectors not being able to pursue deadbeats, your electric company not being able to call about a hazard that requires your immediate attention (the need to cut power, for example). These extreme examples are meant to illustrate a point about the difficulty of policy formulation.

I think the "prior business relationship" clause allows these calls, and "immediate hazard" clause allow the utility to call you (yeah, right, like you don't know already) that your power is out.

What I don't like is the "prior business relationship" implies willingness to recieve advertisement calls. No, it should be more tightly related to the business transaction type. If you have a Credit card, your credit company should be able to call you if you're late, if they suspect fraudulent use of the card, etc., but not to push more fee-based "services" related to having the account.

Tired of arguing with AT&T that they can't beat my cell phone w.r.t. long distance, since I make most of my long distance calls at night (in the same time zone) or on the weekend (free minutes).

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[Dr Damage I]

Just tell them your phone number is 867 5309

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Steve B]

It's your responsibility to have a good automated doohicky

Puh-leeze. By this "logic", a bicycle thief could get off scot-free by arguing that they owner's defective lock did not secure his property.

so long as what they do is not fraudulent

Er, cracking past the TeleZapper[tm] IS fraudulent -- the TeleZapper[tm] was clearly put there to keep you out, and you willfully broke in anyway.

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[MadHungarian1917]

Just use ($YOUR_AREA_CODE)-555-($SEQUENCE_OF_FOUR_DIGITS) most of the drones asking for this data are not smart enough to realize that 555 is equivalent to .example.com which is defined in the RFC's for testing.

If their software chokes on 555 use 222 instead

Useful link for UK Residents

[TractorBarry]

And for any UK residents who don't know about it you can get on our equivalent of the "Do Not Call" list by using the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) website at:

http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/

"Yes you do have the right to free speech but if you do it in my face I'll bite your fucking nose off".

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[EvilOpie]

While I do agree with you about businesses asking for your phone number too often, I did once give my cell number to a Victoria's Secret store.

I'm still waiting for a supermodel to call. ;-)

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

Puh-leeze.

There's a big difference between outright theft and merely getting your foot in the door.

Er, cracking past the TeleZapper[tm] IS fraudulent

I'd have to know more about the exploit, but I doubt highly that it's fraud.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[Steve B]

There's a big difference between outright theft and merely getting your foot in the door.

Er, "getting your foot in the door" against the express prohibition of the property owner (which is clearly indicated by the presence of a TeleZapper[tm]) is recognized as a crime in and of itself, even if you don't take anything.

Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi

[cpt kangarooski]

Having a doohicky is implict, not explicit prohibition. But I think a great deal hinges on precisely what it does, and how it is avoided.

Can you provide details, or what?

Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it.

[ddent]

You see it as a nuisance, I see it as an opportunity :). Set up a system where you either take their order and pass it on, or some kind of PBX-type thing and actually transfer them to a restaurant with whom you have commission arrangements :).

Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK

[arminw]

The programs runs with a gadget called a Dovefax+ voice data modem which is plugged into the serial modem port. It can do data, fax and voice and was made in 1991.