Slashdot Mirror
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. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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.
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?
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
"What I cary in this box is your utter subjugation."
You are in a dark place. Everyone is laughing at your FP failure. You are likely to be eaten a grue.
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...)
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.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
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
... 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!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
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.
At least this time there is a valid reason for my story being rejected.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
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.
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
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.
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!
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?
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.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
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.
I had GameStop refuse to do business with me if I wouldn't provide a phone number.
I walked out the door.
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.
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
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?
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.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
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.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
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.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
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?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
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.
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.
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.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
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.
They do in Texas - you can shoot trespassers there. If only there was a similar harsh penalty for telemarketers :)
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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?
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...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
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
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.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
...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.
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.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Most clerks are too stupid to know that all 555 numbers are invalid.
They'll probably ask if you're from Hollywood.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
--
make install -not war
...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...
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
These are the two parts you need to understand. The Fourth Amendment......and the Ninth Amendment...These describe how the right to privacy already exists, and how the Constitution prevents laws that abrogate that right.
Virg