California Judge Routes Campaign Robocalls Through Colorado

Thomas Hawk writes "Victoria Kolakowski, a current sitting law judge at the California PUC, is running for Alameda Superior Court judge in California. As part of her campaign she is robodialing people in California with a pre-recorded message. The only problem is that in Califorina robodials are actually illegal unless first introduced by a non-recorded natural person who gains consent to play the call. Ironically, the agency set up to protect our privacy and enforce this law, the California PUC, is the very agency where Kolakowski works today. Kolakowski originally apologized for the calls but then later deleted messages on her Facebook account from people objecting to her use of these calls. Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'technically' she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal."

Comments

go figure.

[Sir_Lewk]

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Re:go figure.

[DigiShaman]

Oh ya, without question. This level of hypocrisy is as old as civilization itself. My only question is this. Just how much more of this BS are people willing to take. People, cities, states, nations. You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes? It couldn't come sooner to spank these bastards out of office!

Re:go figure.

[msobkow]

Call centers are our main customers at my current job. You wouldn't believe how creative people get, trying to bypass the laws that restrict use of certain dialing technologies (robo-dialers, predictive dialers, progressive dialers, etc.) As a software provider we have to implement options that support those legal restrictions, but a huge number of clients want to know how to disable those features because they've come up with a creative reason why the law doesn't apply to them. We advise them not to do it, but in the end, it's the call center that's in control.

Re:go figure.

[BattleApple]

The use of such a device by any person, either individually or acting as an officer, agent, or employee of a person or corporation operating automatic dialing-announcing devices, is subject to this article.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=85394713794+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

2872(d) lists exemptions.. I don't see anything regarding political messages

Re:go figure.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Her later actions make it appear she is unable to admit when she has made an error. Just the kind of person you don't want sitting on the bench.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

rock on battleapple! parent AC shamed and dejected, The BURN, THE BURN!

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

AC is thinking of the National Do Not Call list, which includes an exemption for political entities. The California state law provides no such exemption.

Re:go figure.

[ultranova]

You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes?

And when that is reached, you get a revolution, which usually ends up putting even nastier people in power, since a revolution temporarily suspends the rule of law, giving the advantage to ruthless people since there's no longer anyone capable of reining them in.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't stop playing. The game is stacked against you from the very laws of thermodynamics to the notion of "corporate personhood".

Re:go figure.

[green1]

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Where I live, they're right. All telemarketing and Robo-calling laws in Canada have specific exceptions for political campaigns...

Of course as soon as I get one from a candidate I immediately remove them from my list of parties to vote for in that election...

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Full law shows lots of wiggle room - go figure:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=02001-03000&file=2871-2876 (parent link is blank)

Jurisdiction opening:

"2872. (a) The connection of automatic dialing-announcing devices to a telephone line is subject to this article and to the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of the commission."

Allowance for calling an organization's members (political parties?):

"2872. (d) This article does not prohibit the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device by any person exclusively on behalf of any of the following: (2) An exempt organization under the Bank and Corporation Tax Law (Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) for purposes of contacting its members."

This looks like the biggest exception:

"2872. (f) This article does not apply to any automatic dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with the person using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

She is probably (hopefully?) only calling registered voters who provided their phone number when they registered. Qualified candidates can (for a small fee) purchase a list of registered voters which includes phone numbers (if the voter optionally provided one).

Exception f:

"(f) This article does not apply to any automatic
dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or
sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to
transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or
other person having an established relationship with the person
using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the
message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/puc/2871-2876.html

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

I was the one that Kolakowski robodialed. I am not an "established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with" her, therefore this exception would not apply to her. If you want to try and argue that the same political party would constitute an "established" relationship (which is a total stretch) then in order to be of my same party, Kolakowski would have to be a registered Libertarian like I am. I doubt she is. But here again, if political party affiliation was enough, then couldn't someone who was a Democrat simply robodial all of the Democrats in California with an unsavory auto warranty scam phone call? As I read this law there is no wiggle room at all. She is breaking the law and she should admit it, apologize and pledge not to use robodialers in the state of California in the future. If she'd like to use them then she needs to work to change the laws in the State to allow them, rather then simply ignore a law that she doesn't like or that is inconvenient for her. But even if she can find some wiggle room or some minor technicality to skate by the intent of this law, certainly the ethical thing for a candidate for judge to do would be to abide by the spirit of the law which is to stop these annoying and harassing cals in the State of California.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a California voter?

Re:go figure.

[faedle]

Interesting.

Isn't the stance of the Libertarian party that such laws are a violation of people's freedom of speech and "robocalls" should be legal?

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

And when that is reached, you get a revolution, which usually ends up putting even nastier people in power, since a revolution temporarily suspends the rule of law, giving the advantage to ruthless people since there's no longer anyone capable of reining them in.

From your response, I'm assuming that, just out of conviction, you speak with a British accent, despite having been born and in raised in the US.

Re:go figure.

[realityimpaired]

You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....

here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.

Re:go figure.

[berzerke]

I do this too. The problem is when all the candidates in a particular race have called me, and this happens quite often. I can't do a write in. The best I can do is not vote for anyone in that race, which doesn't really send any message. Ugggh!!!

Re:go figure.

[MillionthMonkey]

Are you trying to imply that being a voter would have any relevance here?

Re:go figure.

[Imrik]

Just make sure the call is from the candidate they're advocating and not their opponent. I don't know about Canadian law but US political campaign calls are required to state who sponsored it. Unfortunately that notice is at the very end meaning you have to listen to the whole thing.

Re:go figure.

[erroneus]

Politics may be "business" for politicians, but constituents will likely disagree with that position as would nearly any court of law... unless, of course, she gets elected and that particular court of law would likely agree with that perspective.

In the end, she is charged not with interpreting the law, but enforcing it. She broke the very law she was charged with enforcing. She should be removed from her current position by firing and not allowed to step down or resign. As to whether or not she should be elected? That's up to the people, but I think she should be tarred and feathered.

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

could I robodial all California voters with a warranty scam? Would that be legal under the California law?

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

I have no idea how the Libertarian party feels about robo calls. But me personally, I hate them. The Libertarian party best represents most of my major politica views though.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

But even if she can find some wiggle room or some minor technicality to skate by the intent of this law,

Like acquiting herself? Having not redacted herself from the case, obviously.

Re:go figure.

[micheas]

...or other person having an established relationship with the person...

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

The biggest problem is that she couldn't figure this out, and made up some BS about it being out of state having something to do with anything.

So, the call was a) unethical, b) legal, c) the judge is an idiot that doesn't know the law so should not be returned to the bench.

Re:go figure.

[pipedwho]

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.

As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).

With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.

Re:go figure.

[bigstrat2003]

I'm guessing (based upon general libertarian principles, not knowledge of the Libertarian party's stance) that they would be opposed to a blanket ban on robocalls on the grounds you state. I would also guess that they would very much support the do-not-call list applying to all unsolicited calls (correct me if I'm wrong, but right now political calling is exempt), as people should have the right to be free of harassment if they choose.

So I would guess that technically you're right that they think such calls should be legal, but in practice their ideal rules would make them illegal anyway, just via different means.

Re:go figure.

[micheas]

The established relationship is voter, candidate.

That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.

As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).

With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.

The judge is going to be hired or not hired based in part on Thomas Hawks vote.

If someone has the ability to fire you, you have a relationship with them.

Unfortunately for the judge, this was like someone calling when the application page says do not call about this job.

You can do it, you are not going to get hired.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Telecoms is a largely licensed business and a bit more complicated than a hot dog stand. I am not sure what a truly libertarian system would look like, I suspect it would be closer to email than to telephone. In email, there is near-complete freedom but either end can filter easily. With telephony, filtering is largely unavailable (e.g., my celphone is not open and I can't block groups or individual numbers). It is very difficult to determine what a different system would look like.

That said, as a small-l libertarian, all of that doesn't mean shit even to a registered Libertarian. I may oppose the drug laws, I do not however violate them. I may oppose a one-time, flat rate stimulus payoff, I will, however, cash my check as a small refund of my higher-than-average taxes. There are many laws I oppose but I will take advantage of them just as surely as I am bound to the laws that disadvantage myself. Pretty simple, huh?

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were perpetrating fraud, then of course not. That is a violation of contract. There are plenty of other laws to handle that. But the call in question is nothing of the sort. It is a simple political robocall, exemplifying neither force nor fraud.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you are looking for is recuse. If she were text, she could redact herself.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to think an enterprising telco would stand up as the "spam free" carrier, and block calls similar to how gmail filters email. If it truly was what people wanted then there would be demand, and other telco's would follow suit.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason you're looking for is: Title 2 (the same regulations that keep telcos from doing bad stuff).

Re:go figure.

[KiloByte]

No, this is where the bastard's right to swing their fists (or spew spam) meets your face. Robocalls do infringe on your freedom as they force you to do something you don't want (listen to drivel). Free speech is good only as long as no one is forced to listen to you.

Any person should be able to make a public speech. No one should be able to make a speech ON YOUR PROPERTY without your consent.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:go figure.

[mcgrew]

She is breaking the law and she should admit it, apologize and pledge not to use robodialers in the state of California in the future.

No, she shoud be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't get out of a traffic ticket by apologizing and promising not to do it again. And the people of your state should vote this person out of office. Judges and police officers should be held to a stricter standard than civilians.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this would fall into a gray area for most Libertarians (like me). While natural law rights (free speech for example) are very important, so are property rights, so someone hijacking my phone with voice-spam could go either way. It would be logical for a Libertarian to assert that voice-spam is "an initiation of force" against me and my property (my phone), so I don't think there's any inconsistency.

Re:go figure.

[Thomas Hawk]

If my warranty scam was not perpetrating fraud and was just a simple auto warranty robocall, exemplitying neither force nor fraud could I as a California business blast the hell out of millions of California homes with a robodial?

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians and Charities are exempt from the "established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with" telemarketing regulations.

Re:go figure.

[superdave80]

You think the robocaller will get offend if we revoke its freedom of speech?

Re:go figure.

[plawson]

Judges should not be forced to be politicians. If judges were appointed rather than elected they would be less influenced by big money and the judicial system would be more fair.

Re:go figure.

[OrangeTide]

And in a Libertarian utopia I could start a phone company where robodialing violated the terms of service and refuse to accept or route such calls. Then customers would flock to my robo-unfriendly business. And because I'm a private company, I would not be forced to comply with rights to free speech.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

yes, yes I was. I was tired.

Re:go figure.

[Rakarra]

You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....

here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.

Hmmm. Am I the only person who actually prefers a robo-call? They're far easier to hang up on.

The downside is that they do leave answering machine messages, while a normal charity/political caller usually doesn't.

Re:go figure.

[Sir_Lewk]

They're far easier to hang up on.

How do you figure? Hanging up a phone is hanging up a phone, it's not like you need to ask the other party for their permission.

Vote

[Local ID10T]

Well, now we know who not to vote for...

Re:Vote

[noidentity]

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well

Re:Vote

[couchslug]

"Well, now we know who not to vote for..."

And whose story to forward throughout teh intarwebs so this becomes the only thing the bitch is known for.

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that describes most elections. Usually you have to vote against the incumbent, then vote against the whackjob candidates, and in a very rare case there might be someone left who's not completely objectionable.

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Re:Vote

[bugi]

We know her election would benefit those who can afford lawyers to parse the law to the point it is meaningless.

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Why settle for that, when you can have a whole-assed, non-disguised pro-anarchy litany by highly intelligent, reasonable, and well-educated people who would prefer to engage with society and improve it rather than withdraw and hope for disaster? Or is that not strawmannish enough?

Politics as a Dead End:
Part One, Part Two

Re:Vote

[TheSpoom]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's best to show them that they do not have your support and vote third party?

Re:Vote

[mysidia]

There are plenty of people left when you rule out scumbags, and lowlifes.

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

The vast majority of such people are not running for office.

Who (other than a scumbag/lowlife) would want to get elected and have to work with scumbags and lowlifes, anyways?

Re:Vote

[WillDraven]

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

Geez, will everybody stop saying that already? How are you NOT throwing away your vote by voting for a scumbag? Vote for the person you believe will do the job best. We're never going to break the two party duopoly unless we stop throwing our hands up and saying "well what can we do?"

VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY.

Re:Vote

[michaelhood]

Oh well <flips coun>

Poor coun. :(

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

will everybody stop saying that already?

Such an impassioned plea! I am sure everyone in the world will read your post, see its wisdom, and start voting for third parties now.

Re:Vote

[noidentity]

I sure am. Next time I vote, I'll write in "Third Party". Not sure who this is, but they sound good.

Re:Vote

[berzerke]

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs

Re:Vote

[frdmfghtr]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

It would seem to me that this would be a good use of the Internet. To start: if California voters form a Facebook group calling attention to this, that would start the word spreading. Groups are formed for all sorts of nonsensical things (like the perpetual hoax that Facebook will soon start charging a monthly fee), this robo-calling is something that is real.

A YouTube video clip calling attention to it would be another route. Tweet and re-tweet it via Twitter. Blog about it. Post to other online forums. Heck, email your friends and relative that are affected by this. Contact the candidate directly and confront her about it.

It's a little, but it's a start.

Re:Vote

[selven]

Hey, there's lots of reasonable, honest candidates out there, and you could be among the 927 people voting for one in the next election!

Re:Vote

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Ooh, ooh, I know! We get someone who has access to robodialing equipment who does NOT live in California ...

Re:Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that it's true is that the way most elections in this country are held is fundamentally broken. Most state and federal elections use the "tried and true" simple plurality voting system whereby each voter gets one vote to cast in favor of the candidate of their choice. This is the ideal, perfect voting system... for the case when there are two candidates. For all other numbers of candidates, it's actually the worst possible system. All known single pass voting systems have paradoxes, but this one has the worst paradox. That being that voting for the candidate who truly reflects your wishes is extremely likely to cause the candidate you least want to win. For example, a vote for Nader really was essentially a vote for Bush (and there's little argument that most Nader voters would have vastly preferred Gore to Bush, even though they certainly preferred Nader to either of them) unless you were already 100% guaranteed that the one you least want is definitely going to win your state which, in most but not all states, means that your vote no longer counts anyway. The same situation with Clinton and Perot. Basically, it's a system where the end users have to game the system and compromise to attempt to have part of their will recognized. There are a lot of other ways it could be done. For example, having each voter list the candidates in order of preference, or perhaps rating them on a 10 to -10 scale, etc. There are a lot of ways to do it, and, as I mentioned, none of the single pass systems perfectly represent the will of the voters, but all of the other ones seem to represent it better than the one that's actually used in the US. Basically you have a situation where the people only believe that they have a representative democracy, but the reality is that the system is broken beyond belief. The trouble is: "we need to change this system to break up the two party oligopoly is a pretty tough sell to the Democrats and Republicans for some reason.
Oh, also, we need to get rid of the blasted electoral college. There's no good reason the vote of someone from Wyoming should be worth four times as much as the vote of someone from Texas. If they have to keep it because it's in the constitution, alter it so that the votes of college members are proportional to the number of people they represent or, better yet, give them a number of votes equal to the number of voters they represent and require them to cast them the same way as those voters.

Re:Vote

[mr_walrus]

in fact, robocall all your friends and contacts about this problem! :)

Re:Vote

[hockeyc]

But look just how much she's into the letter of the law, she'd make a great judge! :/

Re:Vote

[Rakarra]

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

Maybe if this was a US congressional election, that might make the case. But this is an alameda county court judge position -- the total number of votes cast for one candidate or the other is extremely small. You don't need that large of a "protest vote" to tip the scales.

Why!?

[91degrees]

How stupid is she?

Honestly, It's not so much about the legality of it. It's the negative publicity. These things are illegal because people find them really really irritating. If you're trying to hawk holidays or something then you probably haven't heard of the company in the first place, so even if you go with someone else they haven't lost anything but for a candidate in an election, a vote for the another party is another vote they have to make up for elsewhere.

Re:Why!?

[v1]

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

Re:Why!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty stupid, that's why I won't vote for her.

Re:Why!?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

It's really no surprise.
Finding loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law is practically the definition of a lawyer.
Most judges are former lawyers.

Re:Why!?

[butlerm]

She is unethical and a bit of a hypocrite at the very least. Clearly the law needs to be amended to eliminate the loophole, but she is violating the intent of the law in spades. For a judge, that is unconscionable.

Re:Why!?

[v1]

I thought judges were rehabilitated lawyers?

Re:Why!?

[xous]

Haha
I got this call from this fuckwit trying to sell a mayor for the local city.
"I'm calling to tell you what is running for Mayor for ... Would you let me know how you plan to vote?"
"Well, thanks to this call I know I certainly will not vote for . And you can go fuck yourself for wasting my time."

Yes, I'm an ass. These fuckers wake me up and I have absolutely no respect for them.

If I'm a good mood they get to "Hi, I'm calling from xxxx..." before I say "go fuck youself" and hang up.

Re:Why!?

[X0563511]

Imagine if you sounded just like that. That would be hell.

Hi, I'm calling from... the hospital, your mother is sick. Shit.

Hooray for rationalizations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kolakowski is an asshole. Therefore it's technically legal that I put a bullet through their brain.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[meerling]

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn tootin', hombre.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[MightyMartian]

They'd get you on Interstate commerce laws. You were part of a conspiracy to transport the bullet across state lines.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Interesting theory... sounds like one of those annoying law school questions. Which state has jurisdiction?

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[AnonymousClown]

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Only if the bullet passes through yet another state.

I saw it on a documentary on Hulu. Funny this is, it's a cartoon so I think it's a legal thing for kids.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[Anonymous Coward]

>So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Aha! The Sideshow Bob defense!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door

Re:Hooray for rationalizations!

[Locke2005]

If you are in a state that allows firing missiles, then where the missile lands is of no consequence... If you can find a state to stand in where firing guns at people is legal, then according to Kolakowski, you're home free.

I thought this was legal for political messages...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

I guess

[DaMattster]

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

Re:I guess

[AnonymousClown]

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

If you''re not Judge, Cop, member of Congress, or the President; you're little people. Unless, you're the big shot that's funds their campaigns then you own their ass. So I guess that makes members of my list slightly larger people or something.

Re:I guess

[bky1701]

Come on! Everyone knows that isn't true.

You forgot the governors, CEOs, religious leaders, military, and people from countries we like (not our own).

Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not in California, start your robodialers!

Contact:

Kolakowski for Judge 2010 (FPPC No. 1324175)

285 Hanover Avenue, #1

Oakland, California 94606-1260

(510) 465-2988

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[AnonymousClown]

As a revenge fantasy (I'm afraid that I'd get in trouble because I'm not a big shot businessman or politician), I thought of writing a Python script that would use the modem and call and leave a message.

The logic would be:

1. Wait for dial tone.
2. Dial.
3. Wait so many seconds for answering machine
4. Play wave file. - repeatedly until hang up.
5. Go to 1.

And just let it run.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[sponga]

I believe we had those things called 'wardialers' back in the AOL kiddie days when progs were coming out left and right to do stupid mischievous behavior , I probably got them sitting on a floppy somewhere deep in a drawer and they probably are still compatible today.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[biryokumaru]

Drop the modem and implement it as a Skype plug in...

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[michaelhood]

I'll just leave this here: http://public.ifbyphone.com/services/voice-broadcasting

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not in California, start your robodialers!

Won't work -- self-help is illegal in the US. Many years back, some major televangelist had a massive dial-in campaign. Someone set up a dialer to keep the 800 line constantly busy. He was traced, prosecuted and paid dearly for some BS crime like "misappropriation of resources. (An 800 line pays higher than normal charges per call.)

Hell, even self defense is forbidden in America. Run from a cop because you don't want to be questioned and the bloodthirsty cocksucker can shoot you in the back (or escalate the issue into a shoot-worthy situation). But if you shoot someone who doesn't have a shotgun six inches from your face, your ass is gone.

Keep playing the game bitches

[Anonymous Coward]

Let your common sense go so that your side of the political game wins. To hell with the actual results once these cheap fucks get into office. Just as long as they have the right little letter after their name, that's all that matters even if they're screwing you.

Elected judges = bad idea

[OnePumpChump]

That's the source of zero tolerance for (not really a problem) and tough on (convenient scapegoat). You also get judges becoming corrupt and unethical in ways that would otherwise only apply to legislators and executives. Like this.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Because our federal court system is a paradigm of integrity and obedience to the rule of law.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are not elected that is worse. They will just get corrupt because they can't get fired.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[dkleinsc]

Yes and no.

Elected judges do run into these sorts of problems, because they're elected officials with all the baggage that carries. On the other hand, appointed judges for life are accountable to practically nobody, and in areas that have them tend to be the appointer's law partner (or other associate).

In short, they both suck, and for different reasons. And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[Haeleth]

That's a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to have unelected judges who can still get fired.

You're also making the assumption that being appointed for life inevitably leads to corruption. You provide no evidence to support this. Indeed, there are plenty of counterexamples, such as the Supreme Court, where justices are appointed for life precisely to reduce the risk of corruption -- and it appears to work pretty well.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[shentino]

They can get fired, it's called impeachment.

Problem is they can only be fired by the same corporate shills we supposedly DO elect.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Appointing for a fixed term, as a condition of passing your bar exam.. think of it as jury duty for lawyers... force this "public service" to be served in a jurisdiction far outside of the lawyer in question home area.. toss in some completely arbitrary "sentences" for conviction for breaking public trust (IE if you are found to be accepting a bribe or whatever) such as disbarment in all 50 states, and banishment from the legal system in general (IE no testifying, no working in any area remotely related to the legal system)..

The chances of any lawyer being dumb enough to give up the rest of his or her career for a bribe/helping a friend of a friend of a friend's kid etc..are slim to none..

Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[snowgirl]

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

I think you're stretching...

Easier to just call her an idiot, not vote for her, and move on.

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[im_thatoneguy]

Can we get a lawyer in here?

Hi, my name is Victoria Kolakowski, I used to be an attorney but am now a Judge in the state of CA. After thoroughly reviewing your claims I am confident in saying this person has broken no crimes.

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this?

[micheas]

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

IIANAL but the CA elections code only bans taking the voter roles out of the country, a wobbler carrying a three year sentence.

Idiot judge

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiotic judge. Not counting the stupidity in this type of marketing (people won't vote for people who annoy them), why the hell does she think just cause the calls are routed, that would make them legal.

Spam laws are a perfect example. Most countries do not have them but the US does. Does the fact that spam comes from other countries with no laws make them any less illegal in the US? All that means is that those spammers can be arrested if they ever go on US soil. Oh wait, she's already in her state! Seriously, nevermind getting reelected, she should be tried under the very law her agency help create.

if you ever want to be a politician

[circletimessquare]

you first need the character attribute of massively blind hypocrisy

this applies to the right, and the left

"do as i say, not as i do" must be your highest credo

then you are a guaranteed success

FTFY

[copponex]

Person thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Hypocrisy isn't restricted to politics. It's just easier to see in people other than yourself.

Re:FTFY

[obarthelemy]

Indeed, but seeing a politician break the law is like seeing a doctor smoke, a priest rape a kid, my parents doing it, a cop assaulting someone... it just hurts more.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all human... ya know. People aren't good or evil. The world isn't black or white. They just want you to think that so they can use it against us.

Re:FTFY

[knarf]

a priest rape a kid, my parents doing it, a cop assaulting someone

Something is not right with our society's morals... This line should be part of a psychological test, 'which of these does not belong'.

Did your parents truly commit a crime in conceiving you? I can understand that you do not relish the prospect of observing them in the act but to compare it to the actions of the pope's minions or police violence is a bit overboard.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy isn't restricted to politics. It's just easier to see in people other than yourself.

Yes, but politicians can tell men with guns to make you obey.

AZ judicial nominating commissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in AZ, one thing they got right was to appoint judges, which cuts out most of this type of campaigning crap. The list of appointees from which the governor chooses is drawn up by the judicial nominating commission, a bipartisan body that consists of lawyers AND nonlawyers. This allows a consensus to be reached as to who is at least _competent_ enough to be appointed. After 2 years of serving on the bench, judges face a retention election, and every 6 years thereafter they are up for another retention election. Usually, the only time the retention elections receive much public attention is when a judge has gone off the deep end in some respect and faces being dumped by the voters. IANAL, but many law professionals around the country hold the AZ judicial appointment process in very high regard, as it produces quality appointments without most of the partisan garbage present in judicial elections.

Re:AZ judicial nominating commissions

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that it's Arizona's citizens that are the problem?

Disbar that spamming bitch.

[jcr]

We do not need weasels on the bench, or acting as officers of the court in any capacity. This woman is a disgrace to her profession.

-jcr

I'm in California

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

For the last week or two I've frequently received three robocalls a day. I'd say this law's effectiveness is on par with the hands-free laws.

Re:I thought this was legal for political messages

[gyrogeerloose]

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

Same here--I'm also a Californian and I get a boatload (bot-load?) of robocalls from candidates and advocates on all sides of every issue before each election. I had no idea that they were illegal here.

I'm not defending Kolakwski by any means, I hate robocalls and hang up immediately whenever I get one, but she's not really doing anything that a lot of other people are doing.

Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[QuietLagoon]

I am still trying to understand why anyone seems to think that annoying people with robocalls is the way to garner support from those people.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[rtfa-troll]

Because. It. Works. .

(unfortunately the use of my Slashdot signature is suspended for this posting; )

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[QuietLagoon]

Because. It. Works. .

.
I think there are multiple reasons:

1. candidates, due to their egos, think that any contact with potential voters is always positive, i.e., they think that people want to hear from the candidates via robo-calling.
2. robo-calling is cheap to do
3. there is no evidence that it really works or does not work, so items (1) and (2) are operative.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[Blakey Rat]

4. The only people with (plugged-in) landline phones are elderly, lonely people. They appreciate someone "to talk to," even if they are just a tape recorder.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[Thomas Hawk]

except that she called me on my cell phone. on a Sunday afternoon during my son's baseball game.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a robodialer, so here's my .02:

The short answer is that: Despite the fact that you are intimately aware of your qualifications, no one else is. People won't vote for you if they don't know who you are! Average voter turnout in primaries is staggeringly low (30% or less), so just getting your name out there is priority #1 for candidates, and if they piss you off enough to matter (see below), there were only 1:3 odds you were going to vote anyways.

The long answer is:
A cost benefit analysis of multiple forms of contacts and their success rates yields a very favorable cost for robocalls. If you are running a campaign on a small budget, robocalls are a godsend. That's why we started doing this, for the small guys. Did I mention that most robodialers run FOSS? My robodial servers run Asterisk on Gentoo, and our developer is regular contributor to Linux Journal (even has his own business card from them).
 
  Consider this please:

Many people who get so ticked off about being contacted about politicians are the same ones bitching about their politicians. You can't replace them if you aren't willing to hear about the alternative, so I tend to find these people disingenuous. What should be concerning you more than the number of calls are the quality. Are you being bombarded by good choices or poor ones? Robodcalls can help you figure that out. People who actually care about politics and their community always welcome more information on their candidates, regardless of media. If you disagree with the media of the message, that's fine, but don't pretend politics will be better off if your family never hears a robocall at dinner again. I'm sorry. It's sad, but it won't. Your dinner has less of an impact on national and local policy. Patriotism doesn't mean yelling loudly, it means listening carefully. I understand selectively censoring your information because of it's originating media. I don't watch too much commercial TV. That doesn't mean that advertising doesn't work, or that News broadcasts don't have an important place in public discourse.

But why do people listen? Well they care for one... but let me ask you this... It is clear from your statement that you think these calls are annoying and ineffective, but I suspect that you and the mods that bumped you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what the average answering rate for these calls is? 75%!!! 75 out of 100 people will answer the call or get it on their VM. Most estimates put direct mail at 30% or less. I call 100k people a month, and it never surprises me how many people listen, or how many people complete our automated surveys. Many people just don't mind listening to a message for 30 seconds. Many older folks stay at home and always answer the phone (they also vote in the highest numbers). Some people just need to hear a voice.
 
  And finally... As a political consultant I will share with you a nugget for the future:
 
  Most people who say they will not vote for you because of a robocall are so bitter that they won't vote for anyone at all, regardless. They are just looking to get mad (I've been doing this for years approaching almost 10 years in person at the door, and on the phone. If you disagree, I suggest you try this for a few years).
 
  Finally, a response to some of the "responses." If you get a political call: listen. If you are annoyed, hang up. It's fast free and FOSS. If you get a commercial call: tell them to DNC you. If they call back, file a complaint. If you do anything else you are wasting your time...
 
....(And ask yourself if the world would really be a better place if 10% of the population responded to annoyances by wasting 40min of time in long drawn out BS. I bet you'd never get into a bank or a service building again. THAT'LL SHOW THEM!)

Cage match with the DC pants judge

[Anonymous Coward]

May the biggest judicial idiot win.

She should have the book thrown at her...

[Anonymous Coward]

But just knowing how the judicial machine works, I doubt she'll even be charged.

Wipe em off the fucking ballot already

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't even obey the rules of the campaigns, then revoke their right to even run!

Oath breakers SUCK

Republicans fascists!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

Wait a second........she's a Democrat. Never mind.

http://california.evoter.com/kolakowski

Re:Republicans fascists!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah I mean wardialing is like a form of entertainment, and Democrats are all about the entertainment industry, right? :D

Republicans just lube you up with some crude and ask you to bend over :)

P.S. Captcha was 'grunted'... fitting isn't it? :D

Politicians

[DrugCheese]

You can't live with them ... ... what do we do with them?

Re:Politicians

[sjames]

Chain them up in parks so the pigeons don't soil the statues...

Elected judged

[quacking duck]

Judges and law enforcement officials in Canada aren't elected. They're appointed by our elected officials, and I'm more than happy they're focused on their actual jobs and not wasting months every few years shilling for votes based on overblown high profile cases.

Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.
     

Re:Elected judged

[sycorob]

Do you guys not have issues with judges/sheriffs/etc being the buddies of the elected officials? The supposed advantage of having these officials elected is that you can boot them if they're not doing their job.

John "Heckuva job" Brown was appointed by Bush, and that didn't work out great.

Re:Elected judged

[Fantastic Lad]

One way of dealing with such problems in smaller towns is to let the Federal police do the work; that is, RCMP officers, when they get the job, are shipped off across country to another province where they serve a term. This way, they don't know anybody and are able to do their job without bias.

It's not an ideal solution, but it certainly serves to cut down on small town corruption. I've had my share of encounters with RCMP officers, and I always come away really impressed by their behavior. I knew a girl once who had gotten into in some trouble; it wasn't her fault, but she was a foreigner and was terrified; in her home country dealing with the cops meant you were basically going to be shaken down by a state-funded gang. I assured her that this wasn't the case in Canada, at least not that I'd ever seen. The officer came, was really supportive and calm and everything was taken care of in a really professional and competent manner. After the officer left, she turned to me with tears in her eyes and she said "I love Canada." That was a good example, and I warned her that Canada wasn't perfect; we have plenty of stupid here as well, but we certainly did have some good law enforcement and emergency workers. Part of it is that they are quite well paid. Starting salaries at the RCMP are pretty big.

Larger cities, by contrast, employ local law enforcement and hire from the resident populations, but cities being bigger entities have a lot more anonymity simply due to their size. There is, of course, still the danger of corruption and bad apples. And 9-11 left its mark of stupid paranoia here as well, but on the whole we seem to do pretty well compared to other places.

-FL

Re:Elected judged

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you guys not have issues with judges/sheriffs/etc being the buddies of the elected officials?

As if "elections" do fuckall to prevent crony-ass bullshit from going on. Ever look into how it is that there are 435 members of the US House of Representatives, but only about 20% of them have to pay any attention to their constituents? At least with appointed officials, you *know* exactly who they owe there job to, instead of having them beholden to the power brokers that fiddle with district lines to make them "safe". See also Texas a few years back, where an unscheduled redistricting somehow made 5 or so Republican seats "appear"...

Re:Elected judged

[Anonymous Coward]

While I won't say it has never happened, I can't recall any case of buddies being chosen for positions. It certainly appears like any other hiring process it is based on qualifications.

Re:Elected judged

[quacking duck]

I believe you mean Michael Brown, and he was removed from his post far faster than if he had been elected to it.

While appointments can be abused (there is a debate over our unelected senate, which is a room full of patronage appointments from whichever party's in power when a position is filled), my take is that those positions should not be elected posts because they do not represent you, they (judges, attourney generals, etc) represent the state. In Canada, this means the only positions up for election are municipal, provincial or federal representatives, as well as local school board trustees (since they *do* represent your ward in matters of public education).

It's supposed to be the elected officials' jobs to determine the best candidate for a position. You do not elect the US military commander in Iraq, for instance; that's the president or congress' job, iirc. And while there will be ambitions to advance the ranks internally (as there will anywhere else), we won't have things like the Duke rape case, where the DA was making an obvious election play that thankfully backfired on him

Don't get me wrong, our system's not perfect either, but in this particular area I think the US system is more flawed than ours.

Re:Elected judged

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.

The funny thing is: this applies to politicians as well.

Re:Elected judged

[mcgrew]

John "Heckuva job" Brown was appointed by Bush, and that didn't work out great.

Bush was elected by the voters, and that didn't work out too great, either.

Not really true that...

[denzacar]

And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

A good alternative was figured out long ago. Genetically engineered and cloned judges.
It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Not really true that...

[biryokumaru]

I'd vote for JFK's clone.

Re:Not really true that...

[denzacar]

I'd vote to have Marilyn Monroe cloned.

Re:Not really true that...

[meerling]

Judge Dredd, he's tough but completely fair and unprejudiced.

And in the other direction...

[msauve]

in my past life, I worked for a company responsible for the stuff used to create/implement "touch-tone hell."

When will organizations get a clue - if people don't want to be called, you're only going to piss them off by calling them, and the results will be counter-productive. If you piss me off by making me spend my valuable time going though some poorly designed menu system, only to run into a dead end/disconnect, you can bet that when I do get in touch with a human, I'm going to make sure they get to spend lots of their paid time handling my call.

Re:And in the other direction...

[sumdumass]

I guess they will get the hint when people stop automatically hanging up on them and start burning resources by keeping the person on line for hours then declaring they aren't interested.

For instance, I received a third call from an organization soliciting charitable donation. I have already told this organization to take me off the calling list and any other lists they have with my name or number on it two times (I don't do phone donations). After telling this third guy about being order to remove me from the lists, he promptly explained that he wasn't subject to the do not call registry because they were a charity. Of course the the laws concerning removal from calling lists upon request supersede the DNC registry and are a combination of state an federal laws. Well, after this authoritative answer detailing how the laws don't apply to him, I said "Oh, I didn't know that, then asked him to explain what he was representing. I then asked a crap load of stupid questions to drag out his time on the phone. I think I tied him up for about 20 minutes before he started getting anxious about a large donation. I asked if a manager was available to sit in on the call as I wanted to make sure they understood why I was making the donation. Sure enough, after another 10 minutes or so, I got someone on the phone claiming to be a supervisor. I then explained that because I requested to be taken off the list and all lists they were associated with, their call allowed me to file a formal complain with the public utilities commission of the state and I would be entitled to a $500 award for each of their violations of state law. This happened twice so it would be $1000 total and in lieu of collecting, I am donating this $1000 in spirit by not filing the complaint at that time under the provision that I never be contacted by them or their call center again. The manager attempted to asset they weren't subject to the DNC registry again and I explained that the provisions I am speaking of is under state law and existed long before the Do Not Call registry ever has and referred them to the Ohio public utilities commission and the Ohio office of consumer counsil for further explanation. Little was I aware of at the time that Ohio law allows for $2000 fines to be awarded to the person now.

I never received a call from them again. All in all, I took up about 40 minutes of their time in order to tell them not to call me again or I would take legal action. If everyone, or even 10% of the people did this, it would become economically unfeasible to continue calling people who do not want to be called. And that's without resorting to court or legal actions.

Re:And in the other direction...

[zippthorne]

I'd have been more satisfied if you'd taken the legal action. Also, the laws need to be set up to ding the call center *and* the groups that hire them. It's not enough to just punish the companies using call centers: those specific companies will stop, but the call centers themselves will find someone else to scam into thinking it's a good idea.

Re:And in the other direction...

[xero314]

It would be far more "economically unfeasible" if everyone would just "automatically [hang] up on them." My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone. If I just hang up on them then I have no time lost and they still have to pay for their dialer (which is often a per call cost). Luckily none of that really matters to me because I only use a cell phone, and since it's still a receiver pays economic system, solicitors are in violation of the law if they call me. I haven't received a legal marketing call in over 5 years (I have received a few scam calls but your not going to stop them until people are smart enough to stop falling for it).

Re:And in the other direction...

[djradon]

good for you.

now if only we had super-smooth AI agents to adopt your technique for us!

Re:And in the other direction...

[sumdumass]

My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone.

Your time may be valuable to you but it's not as valuable to them unless you make it expensive for them. They already work the costs of the hangup and auto dialer into the fees so you are not making a dent in their bottom line. However, take an employee and put him in a position that he can only make one or two calls an hour with little to no effectiveness and you have essentially changed their entire business model and it will require them to either stop robocalling, take you off the list, or hire more employees and up the costs of the service- most likely to the point it won't be used because of the costs.

Sure, your American Idol is important to you. But do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell. You will be doing yourself and the country/world a huge favor. And I will be thinking good things about you the next time a telemarketer doesn't call me.

Re:And in the other direction...

[mcgrew]

My dad listens for ten seconds, the quietly lays the phone down. As I don't have a landline, I never get robocalls at home; at work I just hang up.

Re:And in the other direction...

[kimvette]

Here's a solution for the human-made calls: when they call and you see it's a telemarketer, just greet the caller with "Hello, I'd like to speak to you about life insurance. Are you currently covered?" or "Hello, I would like to speak to you about your eternal salvation. Have you received Jesus as your personal savior? They invariably hang up before you finish either question, although one time the telemarketer did stay on the phone for a few seconds after I finished (and didn't say a word), and I could hear typical call center babble in the background.

For the robot calls, listen to the shleil, then if you can select a number to speak to a human, do it and follow through with the above - otherwise, if you can get a real phone number for the assholes, set up asterisk to repeatedly call them to waste their CSRs' time by playing back a message thanking them for the automated calls, and how do they like it? (bonus points for spoofing caller ID like they do)

Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.

Re:And in the other direction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back before the do not call list, I ALWAYS asked them to wait for a couple of minutes, then when I got back I asked them to take me off their list and send me written confirmation that they had done this. Anything to increase their cost of doing business.

Re:And in the other direction...

[Uncle Rummy]

do the world a favor and skip a couple hours of TV and make a telemarketing firm's life hell.

You know what would be awesome? If somebody were to set up a phone bank to which we could forward telemarketing calls to tie up the agents' time without having to actually stay on the phone feigning interest. It wouldn't have to be too fancy - just a basic IVR that did something like this:

Joe Blow: Hello?
Telemarketer: Hello! My name is Jim and I'm...
Joe Blow: Oh, hi Jim. Can you hold on a sec? I want to forward you to my other phone because I don't like to keep this line tied up. It'll just take a sec.
Telemarketer: Uh, sure, no problem.
[forward to 555-whatever]
[ring ring]
IVR: Thanks for waiting - I really need to keep that other line open. So what can I do for you?
Telemarketer: Oh, uh, as I was saying, my name is Jim and I'm calling on behalf of...
IVR: Oh, oops - can you hold on a second? Somebody's at the door. Be right back, thanks!
Telemarketer: Oh, um... ok
...[random delay between 1 and 5 minutes]...
IVR: Sorry, I'm back. My neighbor Shirley is looking for her dogs again. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Telemarketer: Oh, no problem sir. So, as I was saying, I'm calling on behalf of The Human Fund. We see that you donated...
IVR: Oh, crap. I have to get the roast out of the oven. Can you hold on a sec again? Sorry - thanks!
Telemarketer: Uhhh, ok I guess...
...[random delay]...

...and so on. Surely such a service wouldn't be too terribly expensive or difficult to run these days, would it?

Re:And in the other direction...

[Anonymous Coward]

or there could be an open source project to develop an IRC style chat bot AI program that attempts to keep them on the line as long as possible and waste as much of their time as possible by continuing a fruitless conversation. This could be hooked in with an open source PBX program, such as asterisk, to send everyone not on a whitelist of pre-approved callers to the "labyrinth" (i.e. the maze from which there is no escape), where the automated chat-bot would attempt to waste as much of their time as possible.

Re:And in the other direction...

[mhajicek]

Great idea. Hey, I have an idea how to market it...

Re:And in the other direction...

[Rakarra]

For God's sake, mod this one up to 11!

I could totally see a service like this being successful.

If nothing else, it would make a classic SNL routine. >_>

Not the only one == Meg Whitman also doing this.

[whoever57]

I just got a robocall that was not compliant with the law (incoming caller-id blocked, no human intro, no phone number given) "by" Mitt Romney on behalf of Meg Whitman.

Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocalling

[whoever57]

I just received a robocall (no human, no incoming caller-id) in support of Meg Whitman.

Re:Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocall

[Anonymous Coward]

Even for $80 million, no human would be caught dead making calls for Meg Whitman.

Typical Hypocrat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even have to guess her party affiliation.

And you finally got a woman to call you!

[GravitonMan]

Now your complaining that you finally got a woman to call you? Everyone here keeps talking about how terrible robocalls are. For most of you/us, its the only female who would leave a message on your answering machine.

Especially if the robocall is a "Phonesex Robocall"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlZQ4XZisSk

It's not just this judge

[laing]

I live in California and my phone has been ringing with robocalls about 4 times a day for the past 2 weeks. (There's an election on Tuesday.) I've answered a few of them and listened to the messages left by the rest. NONE of them were introduced by a person. Most of the calls had a caller ID originating in California. A few of them were blocked.

The most annoying feature of these political calls is that there is no way to opt out. The DMA/FTC lists are exempted from political calls and these calls do not even give you a way to tell them not to call you again.

Re:It's not just this judge

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the OP might just have another horse in the race. This judge crossed her t's and dotted her i's better than any other candidate.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! That's socialism!!! The people of California are being robbed! I mean, it's not like the federal government provides any services to individual states or to the entire nation as a whole, or to individual residents of states that aren't accounted for in the amount that "the state receives in federal funds". I'm sure that amount considers defense of the country (which California is a part of), California's share of the benefits of federally funded research (not just the amount of that money spent in California), all kinds of federal food subsidies, the taxes that California charges to recipients of federal funds through all manner of federal programs, etc. Nope, it's just the evil federal government (irony aside, the Federal government is pretty terrible in lots of ways, but I don't think it's actually any worse than most state governments) stealing from poor old California. Boo Hoo!

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Anonymous Coward]

I say: Fuck you, California... stay the fuck away from OUR state.

California doesn't want your state. Your weather sucks, your agriculture sucks, your scenery sucks. This applies to your state and the other 48 as well.

party hacks

[zogger]

I seriously doubt that you get appointed a judge someplace, supreme or not, without you already being a bought and paid for party shill of one political gang or the other. You aren't even considered for the nomination unless you have been compromised.

In other words, I ain't buying that independent bit. They are bought off or black-mailable, or both. The system is rotten and corrupt, from the top down, from the bottom up, and sideways in every direction. Appointed for life is a nice theory to try and control corruption, I just don't think it works in real life, they get corrupted well before this appointment/nomination/confirmation.

And that is how it "appears" to me after watching politics fairly closely for around 4.5 decades now.

bad publicity .. not

[gearloos]

Unfortunatly, the only people who will care about this(or actually understand the implications of putting a person with such blatant disregard for current laws on the bench) are the ./ popluace. Joe citizen actually doesn't give a rats ass about judges and just clicks off names...usually incumbents, at election time. Sad but true. What we really need is a DA with balls enough to go after this and media (we all know media really owns the government right?) that doesn't have any monetary reason for protecting her. Yes, Media chooses who to ruin... grow up if you don't believe that.

Re:bad publicity .. not

[Eskarel]

If you were talking about some obscure tax law, or privacy law, or election regulation, you'd probably be right. However I think you underestimate how much people hate cold calling and robodialers in particular.

The news media will be perfectly happy to call the judge on this since they know it'll get ratings.

Re: The ultimate solution

[symbolic]

No amount of creativity can defeat my choice to ignore the call.

Re:I thought this was legal for political messages

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

Me neither. I've always understood the law to exempt politicians, charities and, most recently, polls or "surveys", many of which can easily turn into push polls.

I thought the laws, such as they are, only applied to sons of bitches like the "Clean all your carpets for only $99" who work out of Maryland and who don't give a rat's ass anyway.

They're pretty smart people -- they learn. Pressing 2 to make them stop didn't work, so I started pressing 1 "to schedule an appointment". Then I'd tell Debbie or Sandy or Tiffany (they all sound like strippers) to pound a broken beer bottle up their cunt or to shove white-hot barbed wire up their ass. Pretty soon, they quit transferring my call when I pressed 1.

But, if I'm lucky, I gave a few of them recurring nightmares whenever they saw beer bottles or barbed wire fences.

Hmm...

[sootman]

Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'technically' she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal.

I guess she skipped the day in law school when they covered "the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law."

Re:Hmm...

[stinerman]

She might be on decent legal footing. If robodials are legal in Colorado and illegal in California, whose law is controlling? I'm willing to bet federal law is controlling here.

Now she's got a tougher case because she is commissioning the calls, and she's a California citizen, but if she wasn't this could be a more interesting case.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Anonymous Coward]

All evidence is to the contrary.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[magarity]

cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds
 
Nope; Let me fix that for you:
 
State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.
 
That whole system is a giant scam on ALL the citizens if you ask me; underperforming state fiscal behavior is rewarded and performance is penalized. The states whose citizens pay more than their state government gets need to send better representatives to the federal government.

Robo Calls....

[dogzdik]

Robo Phone callers should be shot with robo guns. Fuck them and all telemarketers.

Oh Really?

[Greyfox]

In that case all her phone numbers should be robo-dialed 24x7. I'm sure there's somewhere in the world where that's legal...

Ok folks... here's the plan

[corndogg]

I've pretty much given up on incoming calls on the land line at this point and don't give the number out to anyone.

What I need is some sort of small mac based program that answers my land line on the second ring and then plays a random series of chat-bot style queries and responses that I will record in my own voice.

Bonus points if the software can detect pauses from the other caller before playing it's responses. Extra bonus points if the software can detect the asking of a question by the caller. Extra extra bonus points if the software can also record both sides of the call so I can listen to the hilarity later.

Re:Ok folks... here's the plan

[Locke2005]

Isn't it nice that every phone company charges you a couple bucks extra every month for the privilege of NOT having your number listed?

Your chat-bot could backfire when it says "yes" in the wrong place and signs you up for some new service.

Re:Ok folks... here's the plan

[corndogg]

Good Point! No absolute positives in the responses.

Re: The ultimate solution

[X0563511]

My phone has a nice patch available - a whitelist. If you aren't on my contacts list, it automatically goes to voicemail. This can be temporarily disabled.

I have a similar patch installed, and that's simply a blocker-contact (add a number, and it never rings or notifies about calls from that number) as too many unknown contacts legitimately call me.

Or the reverse...

[Mad-Bassist]

If I were running for office, my temptation would be to hire someone to make the most annoying and newsworthy robocalls for my opponents.

Not that it matters...

[Anonymous Coward]

But she used to be a he.

Fuck That Bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Victoria Kolakowski. Fuck that bitch. Sack her from her current job, prohibit her from ever holding a public position again, help her get started as a barista. Fucking scurvy bitches.

So the law only applies to some of us?

[morphotomy]

So Tommy Chong got put in jail because he shipped a bong from somewhere where they are legal to somewhere they are not, and a judge is trying to win reelection by making robocalls from somewhere they are legal to somewhere they are not. Welcome to crazytown.

Is it me?

[JustNiz]

Am I the only one that expects judges to have better moral scruples than this, regardless of the mechanism they use to attain technical legality for illegal actions?

Her continued use of robodial must have done her campaign net damage. Thankfully she outed herself before the vote, proving that she is not only a clueless judge of human character but a corrupt one, in that she will bend the law when it benefits her. A singularly undesireable trait in a judge.

She should be disbarred.

In defense of robocalls.

[QuincyDurant]

This judge is a moron. She will lose and deservedly so. But robocalls have both utility and constitutional protection.1. The consumer has a devastatingly powerful remedy--voting against the caller's campaign. 2. James Madison et al did not want the government to suppress speech, which leads to remedy #2--citizens may attempt to repeal the first amendment. 3. The courts have ruled that corporations and billionaires can spend as much as they like in the name of free expression of political opinion. Robocalls are the cheapest possible way to get a political message to voters and therefore grassroots campaigns should not be silenced. 4. Do you think a fine is going to stop Meg Whitman's campaign? Since she has the money and the willingness to buy saturation television throughout the entire state of California not only through election day but for months, even years after the election is over, she is very likely to act first and beg forgiveness later.

Strongest argument against robocalls: The California PUC has banned their use even by politicians without introduction by a live operator. In other words, you may think they are constitutionally protected, but you are not the Supreme Court and might do well to obey current law.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Rakarra]

cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds

Nope; Let me fix that for you:

State governments don't pay a penny in federal income taxes. Citizens within the states pay federal income taxes and then the federal government gives kickbacks to the state governments at non-uniform per-capita rates. California's local politicians just aren't as good at demanding per-capita kickback rates as some of the other states.

It's part of one of the negative side-effects of non-proportional representation. The US Senate, the electoral college, all of these systems designed to give smaller states, or at least states with lower population, more power and more say. That of course means they'll get more money, more influence.. which means that the more populous states will get less money per person in services given.

I still think it's the best system available to us, but sure it has its drawbacks.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans

[Rakarra]

I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.

You seemed to have totally missed the point of the article. The reason why this was done in the first place is that YOUR state allows for these disruptive practices.

Re:Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocall

[Rakarra]

Even for $80 million, no human would be caught dead making calls for Meg Whitman.

Have you seen her Republican opposition?