Reverse Robocall Turns Tables On Politicians

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reverse Robocall Turns Tables On Politicians

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 6, 2011 @10:22AM from the who-spams-the-spammers dept.

jfruhlinger writes "One of the great banes of election season is that any politician can shell out a few pennies per voter and phone-spam thousands of people who'd rather not hear a recorded pitch. But turnabout's fair play, and now a service called reverse robocall will deliver your recorded message to elected officials as often as you'd like for a nominal fee. If there's a representative you'd like to call repeatedly, check them out."

252 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Excellent! by masternerdguy · 2011-12-06 10:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Turnabout is fair play.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  not quite the same..
  this calls the politician's offices (which are staffed by people other than them)
  they call your home and cell phones
2. Re:Excellent! by 0123456 · 2011-12-06 10:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Turnabout is fair play.
  Until the politiican adds you to the US government's kill file and a misile comes flying in your window.
3. Re:Excellent! by errandum · 2011-12-06 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  In the end you'll never reach them, only the bottom of the bottom that is handling the phones. You're making that guys day miserable...
  It'b be fun if they ended up doing the same to you and spamm your home phone because you spammed theirs :P
4. Re:Excellent! by gstoddart · 2011-12-06 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Turnabout is fair play.
  Or, it might get you into trouble.
  The politicians who wrote the laws about such things game themselves an exemption to call you. It is entirely possible that if you turn around it do it to them, you could be doing something illegal.
  Remember, the deck is stacked, and not in your favor.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · 2011-12-06 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd like to see a politician sue someone for robocalling them, see if that works out in their favor.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
6. Re:Excellent! by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-12-06 11:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
7. Re:Excellent! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-12-06 11:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The politicians who wrote the laws about such things game themselves an exemption to call you. It is entirely possible that if you turn around it do it to them, you could be doing something illegal.
  They didn't just exempt themselves, they exempted political organisations - an organisation dedicated to delivering the grievances of the citizenry to politicians sounds like the very definition of a political organisation. But then again, I am not a lawyer or a politician.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
8. Re:Excellent! by darkpixel2k · 2011-12-06 11:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Turnabout is fair play.
  Or, it might get you into trouble.
  The politicians who wrote the laws about such things game themselves an exemption to call you. It is entirely possible that if you turn around it do it to them, you could be doing something illegal.
  Remember, the deck is stacked, and not in your favor.
  Exactly.
  
  I've had to run a few of the robocall systems, and I frequently asked questions about it all.
  
  Me: Can we give them a 'press 1 to unsubscribe' option?
  Them: No, otherwise everyone would unsubscribe.
  
  Me: What should I do with incoming calls (when people hit *69)?
  Them: Just drop the call.
  
  Me: I thought robocalling was illegal?
  Them: It is. We're exempt because there are special provisions in $STATE-TELEMARKETER-BILL that allow for political calls.
  
  Me: Hmm. The bill says we must stop calling at 6 PM, otherwise it says were 'harassing' people and could be liable...
  Them: Look further down--it says political calls are exempt and can be run until 9 PM. And also on Saturday as early as 9 AM.
  
  I remember waaay back in 7th grade, a kid was trying to impress everyone on the playground by saying he could build a 'screamer' bomb. It was a special 'pulse' you could send down the phone line that would blow up computers at the other end. Untraceable too.
  
  *sigh* Every 4 years I start wishing that kid was right... ;)
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
9. Re:Excellent! by gstoddart · 2011-12-06 11:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd like to see a politician sue someone for robocalling them, see if that works out in their favor.
  They wrote the laws, gave themselves an exemption, and have better access to law enforcement and legal advice than you or I.
  You're more than welcome to test your theory and see how it turns out.
  I'm just pointing out that they've stacked the deck in their favor, and that if you or I did the same thing they'd probably find some other laws they can abuse to make us go away.
  Me, I'd expect you'd get a visit from the local police or from a Federal Agency. Neither is likely to turn out like you might hope.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
10. Re:Excellent! by Sulphur · 2011-12-06 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Turnabout is fair play.
  Or, it might get you into trouble.
  The politicians who wrote the laws about such things game themselves an exemption to call you. It is entirely possible that if you turn around it do it to them, you could be doing something illegal.
  Remember, the deck is stacked, and not in your favor.
  You have all thirteen clubs : Bid seven No Trump.
11. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  what you will see is Joe Six-pack fined an amount that is 10x Joe Six-pack's income while the politician that makes ~$200,000 will simply not get re-elected and will retire on his government pension. Yay, Joe! You reall stuck it to The Man!
12. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  The law pertains to blanket calling everybody. There is absolutely no law prohibiting the repeated calling of a public official.
13. Re:Excellent! by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 11:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  You have all thirteen clubs : Bid seven No Trump.
  You'll never make it. The opponents lead. How are you ever going to get to your hand to play them? You can't. Seven clubs is your best (only) bid.
  
  Slashdot. The home of stating incorrect opinions as fact.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
14. Re:Excellent! by Fluffeh · 2011-12-06 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  They wrote the laws, gave themselves an exemption, and have better access to law enforcement and legal advice than you or I.
  While I agree that they have better access to legal advice, if you really did want to stick it to the man, your country still has courts that may stick to the letter of the law, but juries generally vote with common sense and a sense of justice. I would be very very surprised if the found someone guilty of robocalling the same candidate that robocalled them. If you filed for costs right at the start, you would likely get off free minus your time in court. The deck might be stacked in their favour, but a jury would likely even that out quick smart. Remember, that jury is probably getting the same annoying robocalls from the same politician.
  If you really wanted to stick it to the man, make sure that it was taken to court and you won. Court rulings have a beautiful way of sticking around.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
15. Re:Excellent! by morethanapapercert · 2011-12-06 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  simple solution for that, just set your phone to call forward to the politicians call centre! Done right, and with a bit of luck, you could take out multiple call agents (and trunk bandwidth with every call they make!
  
  --
  I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
16. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, no. The 1st Amendment argument goes out the window when you use your delivery of speech to rob them of their service. Consider for example your message in the payload of an IMCP packet used to ping flood their website. You're denying them of their service.
17. Re:Excellent! by morethanapapercert · 2011-12-06 11:52 · Score: 2
  
  good point, but in the citizens favour is the fact that he is one person, making repeated but solitary calls to a single number, and one that is one of the official lines of communication with his representative. (with recent events, it's hard to write that without laughing, as if the politician actually represented any of his electors!)
  The politician, on the other hand, is making thousands of calls, to thousands of numbers. In many cases, they are calling a given individual more than once as they cycle through the landlines, business lines and cell numbers assigned within a geographic area.. Therein lies the basis .I'd like to see such laws challenged. Does the American telephone marketing law exemptions allow a politician to call people who can't vote for him because they live outside the district he represents? Does the exemption allow repeated calls to the same individual? Does it allow him to call businesses? (since the point of the calls is to "get out the vote" and businesses can't vote, if they are big enough, they don't need to vote, they control him anyway. If they aren't big enough, then they don't matter...)
  I'm a Canadian, I have an Ontario area code, yet last year I and a few others with the same area code and exchange actually got a few calls from a NY politicians robocaller. I assume it was an error in setting up the dialer program, because only a bare handful of us got called (that I know of) before the calls stopped. Still, I'm sure it would have been mighty embarrassing if we had decided to pursue a class action against the guy in a US court.
  
  --
  I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
18. Re:Excellent! by nedlohs · 2011-12-06 11:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm pretty sure people other than the politician (you know their staff) are the ones who organize the robocalling in the first place. So that seems fair enough.
19. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Whoever modded the above Flamebait is sadly, no, make that tragically out of touch with what is going on in the US today. The OP's statement is feasible based on just 2 items that came out of the government this week. Worst part? It would be legal!
  The Obama government (whom I supported in 2008) is turning out to be one scary piece of work.
  To the modder: please don't ever vote - your ignorance is a danger to the country.
20. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except that judges usually don't tell the ignorant masses which compose a jury about jury nullification, and if they do, they instruct the jury to follow the law and not allow sympathy towards a party to sway their decision. Further, one attorney or the other, or the court itself, depending on jurisdiction will weed out jury members who might be emotionally swayed, or have the intelligence to understand the concept behind jury nullification.
  It's a great idea in theory, but in practice, people are usually too stupid, or biased, or whatever.
21. Re:Excellent! by Sulphur · 2011-12-06 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  You have all thirteen clubs : Bid seven No Trump.
  You'll never make it. The opponents lead. How are you ever going to get to your hand to play them? You can't. Seven clubs is your best (only) bid.
  
  Exactly! One is set thirteen tricks. Having all the cards is not enough. If they are played wrong, then one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
22. Re:Excellent! by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-06 12:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  csb time: I had just added fancy dialing packages for call-forwarding, call-waiting, caller-id and some others (this was 10 or 15 yrs ago when that was still somewhat new). I wasn't used to all the star- number- number codes yet.
  I was planning on having a phone interview and didn't want to be disturbed, so I disabled call-waiting for the duration of the call. I dialed the prefix, waited for beeps, then dialed the number for the company I was supposed to interview with. we had our little interview chat and we ended the call. that was that.
  or so I thought.
  a day or two goes by and my girlfriend (who gets all the calls; I never get phone calls) tells me that people have not been calling her lately. is something wrong with the phone? I go to check things out.
  yes, it turns out, I had enabled call-forwarding for the duration of that call. and all calls! until explicitly disabled!
  even worse, the poor guy at the company that I called: he was getting OUR phone calls! "who the hell is alison? why do people keep calling asking for alison?? I just don't understand it!". I can imagine that is what was going thru the poor guy's head.
  I never did hear back from that company. not sure if they knew what was going on or not; but it was only enabled for a few days...
  learned my lesson. make sure you press the right sequence and don't just assume you got *-something-something right.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
23. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  Get rid of the phone.
  I don't know how it's in the US, but where I live mobile phones are considered personal and don't get listed in phone books. Thus, the only calls I get are from people who know me or the provider. Period. No spam of any kind.
  I had a landline too, everyone has or had one, but it's actually cheaper here (eastern Europe) to own a mobile than a landline and they have better coverage.
24. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how it's in the US, but where I live mobile phones are considered personal and don't get listed in phone books.
  In the United States, mobile phones are not listed in phone books. But not because they are considered "personal," but more because they were never listed to begin with and no one bothered to change it.
  
  I had a landline too, everyone has or had one, but it's actually cheaper here (eastern Europe) to own a mobile than a landline and they have better coverage.
  Let me use Massachusetts as an example: the cheapest landline from Verizon (the ILEC for all but two towns in Massachusetts) is Measured Rate Service. $12.70/mo plus $0.01 per call within your local calling area (typically your town and adjacent towns); inbound calls are unmetered. Reliability is largely dependent on the state of the outside plant.
  I'm not aware of any mobile service that is cheaper, perhaps some pay-as-you-go plan?
  The Measured Rate Service landline is very attractive, but the biggest turn-off is initial cost. Not so much the money as waiting around with my thumb up my ass because the technician is going to show up sometime between 9 am and 3 pm. Because of that initial inconvenience, I have shied away from getting it.
25. Re:Excellent! by realityimpaired · 2011-12-06 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  No... you'd turn the cards in and ask for a re-deal. Or if you were unscrupulous, you'd bid 1 club, and increase as necessary until you win the bidding. Your score in Bridge isn't for winning all 13 tricks, it's for winning more tricks than you bid. You bid 7, you are saying that you'll win all 13 tricks. But if you bid 1, you're saying you'll win 7 tricks, and then the extra 6 are just going to increase your score that much more. You'd bid "no trump" if you're holding all the face cards. :)
26. Re:Excellent! by icebike · 2011-12-06 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Turnabout is fair play.
  Turn about is justa a backfire waiting to happen.
  Doing this just gives them another reason to ignore their constituents.
  They won't even ban the practice or pass laws against it, they will simply send everything to voice mail
  and dump anything coming from these services directly in the trash.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
27. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Or they'll have you declared an enemy combatant and are shipped off to a military prison to be held indefinitely without trial.
28. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 13:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The most common expression of jury nullification in years past was for all-white juries to refuse to convict whites for murdering blacks. Juries are expressly for the purpose of deciding the facts, not the law, for precisely this reason.
29. Re:Excellent! by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter how it's played, if you hold 13 clubs, unless your partner has all the aces, kings, and queens, you will lose the hand. The only way you make 7NT is if the person on your right bids it (and they can only get there if incompetent, as any number of bidding systems ask for and answer stoppers, such that a hand with 13 of one suit being in one hand must* (under any reasonable bidding) be in a suit. 7C is the bid. That's not a problem with the deck stacked against you, but with your bidding.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
30. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  That's auction bridge which has been out of fashion for nearly a century. Get with the times man.
31. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell is going on
32. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Asking a stupid person to not vote is like asking a dog to not fart.
33. Re:Excellent! by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Bridge lessons. Something about someone saying "the deck is stacked against you" and someone making a bridge reference to that, and snowballed from there.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
34. Re:Excellent! by Fjandr · 2011-12-06 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  This might be true, except that it's not. There are states which explicitly give juries the power to decide both law and fact in their Constitutions. Oregon is one such state, though the jury instructions they give directly contradict the state's Constitution.
35. Re:Excellent! by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-12-06 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that usually falls into the category of "harassment". Not saying I'm against it, just stating the probable outcome.
36. Re:Excellent! by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  I remember waaay back in 7th grade, a kid was trying to impress everyone on the playground by saying he could build a 'screamer' bomb. It was a special 'pulse' you could send down the phone line that would blow up computers at the other end. Untraceable too.
  *sigh* Every 4 years I start wishing that kid was right... ;)
  Back in college, I had a computer which experienced a motherboard frying. This was determined to have been due to a lightning strike, which went through the phone line, hitting the modem which did not have protection circuitry, thus making its way to the juicy components. I'm not saying throw lightning bolts at Congress, or am I?
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
37. Re:Excellent! by mysidia · 2011-12-06 14:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Me: Can we give them a 'press 1 to unsubscribe' option? Them: No, otherwise everyone would unsubscribe.
  How about a reversal of this... when someone calls your home, you have a "call screening device" that asks the person to "Please press 1"
  Since the robocaller cannot press 1, their call will be dropped in 20 seconds and never heard.
38. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 14:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. If everyone that spoke out against the Obama administration were to be "accidentally" killed, the news would notice.
  Outliers can be silenced. A critical mass cannot. Shit, look at the Middle East protests for evidence.
39. Re:Excellent! by darkpixel2k · 2011-12-06 14:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm not saying throw lightning bolts at Congress, or am I?
  That fits pretty well with your sig. ;)
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
40. Re:Excellent! by LordKronos · 2011-12-06 14:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Whoever modded the above Flamebait is sadly, no, make that tragically out of touch with what is going on in the US today. The OP's statement is feasible based on just 2 items that came out of the government this week. Worst part? It would be legal!
  The Obama government (whom I supported in 2008) is turning out to be one scary piece of work.
  LOL. Instead of just being very vague to try and sound insightful, please specifically lay out for me which policies or actions by the "Obama government" makes you believe it is feasible that someone would be killed by the government for reverse robocalling politicians.
41. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. OK, time for me to go challenge the government to a legal fight! I might win. My pregnant fiance in the house I just bought won't care if I lose the gamble and can't pay the bills for a few years.
  More realistically, I understand what you are saying, but let's see how you feel when you're responsible for a family and not just yourself. Reality, as it so often is, is not so convenient.
  "I'm a parent. I don't have the luxury of principles." -The Patriot (2000)
42. Re:Excellent! by demonlapin · 2011-12-06 14:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Still their office. I want the bastard who put me on a robocall list that calls my house phone as early as 6 AM or as late as 10 PM (yes, it does, and no, the secretary of state's office says it's not actually illegal and they can't do anything about it) strung up by the balls.
43. Re:Excellent! by demonlapin · 2011-12-06 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  State laws vary. I've had trouble with a local politician whose district has never included me (but whose district did cover another part of the ZIP code my phone number was issued in) whose robocalls come in as early as 6 AM and as late as 10 PM. The Secretary of State's office for my state (since US states don't have foreign relations, the SOS office deals primarily with incorporating companies and conducting elections) said that it would not be illegal for them to robocall me at any hour of day or night.
44. Re:Excellent! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-12-06 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the real chances of winning a case involving reverse robocalls would be based on jury nullification.
45. Re:Excellent! by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. My new signature is intentionally ambiguous, like most of my brain outputs. :)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
46. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-06 15:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Let me get this straight. You don't think a "politician" would feel "threatened" by a Robodialer enough to put the person on a "Terrorist Watch List" or something? When we can kill a US Citizen with a Military Strike without so much a trial, lawyer or otherwise, you don't think that can translate to killing anyone for anything at any time?
  Yes, I'm arguing Slippery Slope, but the fact is, I would NEVER have considered that was even possible a few short years ago. And since it is Obama and not GWB doing it, he gets a pass from the Liberal Establishment Media and no "Obama is a Murderer" signs in front of his vacation home in ... where is he this week.. Ah Yes .. Hawaii.
  Where are the protests? IF that was GWB, the left would be raising hell over what has come out of the White House in the last week, because the Obama Administration basically said "We don't need no stinken courts" for such actions.This shit is pretty scary when you realize what they are really saying.
  And all it takes is for some rotting corpse of a politician to feel threatened to get the ball rolling. BTW, Nancy Pelosi looks like she is perpetually terrified, so I wouldn't be surprised if it she was the first.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
47. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 15:35 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. If everyone that spoke out against the Obama administration were to be "accidentally" killed, the news would notice.
  Really? I think you greatly underestimate those within our intelligence agencies and their ability to cover their own tracks, IF they even found they had to(see below). I would offer supporting evidence, but ah...well, you get the drift.
  You also greatly underestimate the ability of the general populace to turn off reality TV or step away from Facebook to actually watch or read the news, much less remember it. Can you recall how many deaths you read or heard about in the last two weeks? Yeah, me neither. Sad, but true.
48. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-06 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  I miss playing Bridge.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
49. Re:Excellent! by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  1 heart
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
50. Re:Excellent! by geekmux · 2011-12-06 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see a politician sue someone for robocalling them, see if that works out in their favor.
  It will. Trust me it will.
  Hell, half the battle in our legal system today is affording it, so even when you lose, you can get a "win". Of course the 1% you're trying to attack here knows this...they helped contribute to that unbalance of financial power.
  Feel free to try though, and I'll whip out my "told you so" too...course I'll have to yell it to you from outside the prison...
51. Re:Excellent! by geekmux · 2011-12-06 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
  Any mentally competent American can see there is no Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments being afforded any level of respect anywhere, in this post 9/11, PATRIOTic era we live in.
  Spare me the history lesson until you can prove we actually still have a justice system, and not a legal system that does nothing but cater to the 1% who in this case, also happen to be the same 1% charging you with a crime. Good luck.
52. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  The solution to this would seem to be create a political organisation to do the robocalling for you.
53. Re:Excellent! by LordKronos · 2011-12-06 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Let me get this straight. You don't think a "politician" would feel "threatened" by a Robodialer enough to put the person on a "Terrorist Watch List" or something?
  No, not really. In fact, if YOU believe they'd kill someone over a phone call, then they'd probably feel more threatened by you. If you are unstable enough to believe in such craziness, there no predicting what sort of action you might take to protect yourself from those delusions.
54. Re:Excellent! by zippthorne · 2011-12-06 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Is Bridge the same as Spades? Are either of them worth playing? I feel like they might be too complicated to play not-drunk....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
55. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-06 17:01 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  They* killed a killed a guy for being ... "dangerous terrorist". No trial, no judge, no lawyer, no oversight. All they have to do is label people "terrorist" and ... bam, license to kill, but I'm the delusional one. Good one.
  *They being Obama right now, but I wouldn't put it past any of the (R) people either.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
56. Re:Excellent! by tqk · 2011-12-06 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just pointing out that they've stacked the deck in their favor, and that if you or I did the same thing they'd probably find some other laws they can abuse to make us go away.
  Me, I'd expect you'd get a visit from the local police or from a Federal Agency. Neither is likely to turn out like you might hope.
  Just want to say, this's sad. The US ain't John Wayne Country anymore. "Yeah, I robocalled my elected rep, the asshole, so what?!? He's the one who wanted to be a politician, FFS! What's it to you?!? Now get the !@#$ off my lawn!"
  Sad.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
57. Re:Excellent! by cl0secall · 2011-12-06 18:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Been there, done that. I had an old system hooked up to the phone line with an FXO card and running asterisk. It had a default-deny policy -- meaning that if there wasn't an explicitly defined route that matched the incoming caller ID info the caller would get a short, snarky recording telling them to get lost and then get disconnected. If you got past that hump, the next step was "to continue in english, press 1". The next hump is a call queue where you'd hear hold music. At that point the phones inside the house would actually start to ring.
  It was fun to look through the CDR list at the end of the month and look at all the calls that got dropped due to no Caller ID info. Since then the hard drive died and I've been too lazy to hash out the replacement system.
  
  --
  Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
58. Re:Excellent! by mysidia · 2011-12-06 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Since then the hard drive died and I've been too lazy to hash out the replacement system.
  Another system killed by spinning rust.... maybe try a read-only CF or a SSD next time :)
59. Re:Excellent! by ppanon · 2011-12-06 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Years ago, I was getting fax calls at all hours of the day and night from a number block in Alberta that had been owned by Telus but, even as a Telus customer, they wouldn't tell me who the block belonged to. The numbers wouldn't answer if I called back (since it was calling in the middle of the night for cheap rates, it was probably a computer fax line with my number mistyped in their directory) so I had no way to tell them to stop. Telus' only solution was to change my number, which would mean notifying all my acquaintances, with no guarantee it wouldn't happen again. Eventually I got fed up, dropped my land line and switched to a different cellular provider. That's ten years of steady cheap income (>$2500), and counting, that they lost because they wouldn't help me find out who was screwing with my sleep (assuming it wasn't them in the first place).
  About a year ago I started getting robocalls again, but just voice this time. Yes, even though I was on the Canadian do-not-call list. My new Android smartphone had this nice built-in feature where I could just blacklist the number based on Caller ID and it would reject the call immediately. I never heard it ring again and, after a few weeks, they eventually gave up (or possibly whatever marketing or political campaign had my number ran out of time or money).
  I prefer the reliability of land lines in case of a disaster. However I don't think it is worth running 24x7 power and cooling (in summer) for a computer w/ telephony, just to be able to automatically screen and hang up a land line based on a caller-id blacklist before it rings at 3AM. Not when that function comes built-in on a decent smartphone.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
60. Re:Excellent! by ppanon · 2011-12-06 18:32 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. Communist Russia had a wonderful constitution, outlining all sorts of individual rights, and it was regularly ignored by the state apparatus. With a majority of the USA Supreme Court now biased in favour of corporate rights over individual rights, non court-supervised secret intelligence/military operations against citizens, and more - the USA is well travelled down that same path.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
61. Re:Excellent! by Bucky24 · 2011-12-06 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  IMO Bridge is a little more complicated than spades, as it involves having a partner with whom you must communicate. But I was never very good at that-I suppose someone better at non-verbal communication would have less of a problem.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
62. Re:Excellent! by shentino · 2011-12-06 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  Letting stupid people suffer is very darwinistic, and some may argue quite proper.
  The problem is that us smart folks have to share the misery.
63. Re:Excellent! by shentino · 2011-12-06 19:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention that lying during voir dire about your propensity to advocate jury nullification is perjury.
64. Re:Excellent! by lucidlyTwisted · 2011-12-06 20:47 · Score: 2
  
  They* killed a killed a guy for being ... "dangerous terrorist". No trial, no judge, no lawyer, no oversight.
  Care to share the name? News reports? Evidence? If you have evidence, go to the press, or Cryptome or...
  The only suspected terrorist I can think of right now who was effectively summarily executed is Jean Charles de Menezes, and that did not happen in the USA.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
  I could go on and on about the crazy, anti-freedom, anti-democratic laws being passed in my own country; but so could anyone in their own state. There's always been crazy laws (either through malice or ignorance). What you'd need to do to convince anyone of anything is cite actual references and instances. I do not think my state is "out to get me", just pig ignorant at times and running a bit of an "old boy's club". Corporations...yeah, I might give credence to the idea that democracy is being eroded by the increasing power of tax evading mega corps via lobbying and media control. Representation and no taxation? Gotta love that.
  The main worry I have about Obama (and in general I'd say he's a lot better than Bush, but I'm on the outside looking in so a lot of the internal politics goes unreported here) is how cosy the Democrats are with the MAFIAA. SOPA is a stupid act and needs to be killed dead. But once again the USA thinks it is fit to lord it's policies, laws and culture over the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
  So, back to the point, citations please.
65. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-06 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  If only you could figure out how to add premium rate numbers to their robocall list, and then divert the profits to their opponent.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
66. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  Would you settle for calling the bastards who are paying for the opportunity to call you at 6am/10pm? Perhaps let them be called at 5am/11pm -- without you having to get out of your bed? It is, after all, not illegal where you live (ergo: you too can call home numbers).
67. Re:Excellent! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-12-06 21:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In my opinion, the appropriate response to such nuisance calls is the phrase "Impersonal robo-calling at 6am is losing you votes." followed by a loud air horn. Repeat at least six times, to be sure you get your money's worth.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
68. Re:Excellent! by BillX · 2011-12-06 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  This screamer device sounds like the fabled 'blotto box'. The modern Internet sez this was a (mostly purely hypothetical) phone phreak box that would take out large swaths of phone service, e.g. entire area codes. Many years ago I'd heard the name applied to a device that would cut out your local phone and apply high-voltage AC across the wires instead, royally hosing whoever was attached at the other end.
  
  --
  Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
69. Re:Excellent! by AliasMarlowe · 2011-12-06 23:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They* killed a killed a guy for being ... "dangerous terrorist". No trial, no judge, no lawyer, no oversight.
  Care to share the name? News reports? Evidence? If you have evidence, go to the press, or Cryptome or...
  ...
  So, back to the point, citations please.
  Well, assuming GP was referring to US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, there is no shortage of press commentary. Apparently US citizen Salmir Khan was killed in the same attack, but was not deliberately targeted, being just another collateral casualty. The press reports include statements of concern regarding this extra-judicial execution of al-Awlaki being ordered by the sitting US president. It was not a "heat of the moment" death in a shootout or in an attempt to escape from being arrested. Moreover, was not convicted of any offence, not even in absentia. Although many accusations were made (presumably with justification), no charges were ever laid against him. From what is in the press reports, he was by no means a Mahatma Gandhi, but the ordering of an execution without even going through the motions of a trial (not even a mock trial) should be disturbing to any US citizen. It's easier to slide down the slippery slope than to climb back up.
  Oh, here's a few press references, in the Wahington Post, the Huffington Post, and CBS News. Use your Google-fu to find many many more. There is also an interesting comment in the New York Times, which suggests that legal advice given to the president before the execution was that it would be illegal.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
70. Re:Excellent! by lucidlyTwisted · 2011-12-06 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the names and info.
  After reading the links I'm saddened to say I am not really surprised. The USA has regularly engaged in acts of outrage (e.g. extraordinary rendition, torture). Not that this makes the USA the dark evil of the world, various countries have also engaged in outrages (UK, France etc) in the name of defence/war on terror/whatever.
  It's a sick sad world.
71. Re:Excellent! by Anonymus · 2011-12-07 00:09 · Score: 2
  
  It's not illegal because when politicians pass the laws banning disgusting practices like this, they specifically exempt themselves from it.
72. Re:Excellent! by FictionPimp · 2011-12-07 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  I use google voice and call screen everyone not in my address book. No calls for me. If it doesn't come from google voice, I don't answer it.
73. Re:Excellent! by FhnuZoag · 2011-12-07 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  So, in revenge for politicians bothering you, you deny legitimate callers from being able to put their concerns to their elected representatives by DDOSing their phone service. Aren't you a hero.
74. Re:Excellent! by FhnuZoag · 2011-12-07 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Right, exactly. The US political system is already sufficiently opaque and unreactive. Why do people think giving random people the ability to gum it up even further is going to help things?
75. Re:Excellent! by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2011-12-07 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that's the point. Not sure how illegal it is for the blue team to call at 6 am claiming to be the red team, or vis versa.
76. Re:Excellent! by hesaigo999ca · 2011-12-07 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, I guess they would not feel the same if they got these phone calls at their homes, and would soon pass a law against it, where as this way, their staff can take in some time to make as if on the phone all day long listening to "nothing" and get paid for their time....this costs their politician money to continue campaigning .....so I guess even though they do not know how it feels as you and me would at home....they still feel it in the pocket book, indirectly...
77. Re:Excellent! by tbannist · 2011-12-07 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "They" have killed quite a few people for being a "dangerous terrorist". The only difference is this guy also had American citizenship. If you were going to be worried about this you should have started worrying when they started killing people. It shouldn't suddenly change everything because this time, the bad guy who was assassinated was an American.
  I'm simultaneously amused and disgusted by your delusional belief that the nationality of the victim is more important than the murder. You've reminded me of the reason you're on my list of idiots and fools.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
78. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's very illegal; there's someone in Maryland who worked for Ehrlich's campaign staff during the last gubernatorial election that might go to jail for it; he's in court now.
79. Re:Excellent! by jdgeorge · 2011-12-07 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are different courts... I imagine there might be different instructions for juries in Oregon's Federal courts than in the state/county courts. Are you saying the jury instructions in Oregon state courts directly contradict the Oregon constitution? (Any examples of this?)
80. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-07 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot. Mistakenly assuming that I believe that the killing was less important than the nationality. However, when a country can execute its citizens for some "crime" without a trial, I have a HUGE problem. Death Penalty for a crime deserves a trial. PERIOD.
  As for your comment about murder, death, kill, I abhor it. Wars suck, Crime sucks, Life sucks. This wasn't some random guy under some random bomb being kill indiscriminately, which is bad no doubt. This was deliberate targeted execution of a specific individual by his own government, and if you don't see the huge difference between the two, than you are the idiot.
  Oh, and I'm glad I made your list of idiots ;-) And who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who responds to him?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
81. Re:Excellent! by P.+Legba · 2011-12-07 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, piss up a pole. It's not the legitimacy of the callers that matters, but the legitimacy of the representatives...
82. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  shouldn't you be living in a tent in a park somewhere?
83. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Simple solution: Have the robodialer call the politician's home and cell phones.
84. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · 2011-12-07 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
  I think that you're statement shows ignorance of the actual legal system, and what those rights mean. While it might be nice, it just doesn't work that way, and if charges were brought against someone, the govt. attorneys have nearly unlimited funds to fight you.
  Free speech does not mean that you can harass someone. And, you'd never get any attorney to try and convince a judge/jury on the petition portion...dialing your representative/senator doesn't come close to that.
  Just to be clear, I hate these calls as much as anyone here, and would love to be able to give them a dose of their own medicine.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
85. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  That was slightly different. He was a red robocalling people in the blue heavy areas with a message like "The election is won! Don't bother voting."
86. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If those legitimate callers are upset with it, then they should work to get the political exemption removed from anti-robocalling bills.
87. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · 2011-12-07 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that they can theoretically prosecute me and win. But I don't think they would see doing so as a good trade for the type of bad press that would hurt their chances at reelection. Yeah, it's probably legal for them to do that because they wrote the laws, but that doesn't mean their constituents are going to be happy about it.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
88. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · 2011-12-07 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah? You think a politician is going to risk support from his constituents and his reelection chances just to throw little old me in jail?
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
89. Re:Excellent! by MooseTick · 2011-12-07 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Government has an obvious advantage. Can you carry a firearm wherever you go? Can you imprision people or put them on trial?
  
  --
  Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
90. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but at the same time, do you think it would work out well for them, publicity wise, if they were to sue a constituent for robocalling them?
91. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Would they win, though? Do you think voters would take kindly to a politician who did that?
92. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't there a minimum bid, though?
93. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and I'm glad I made your list of idiots ;-)
  Really? Why do you even care? You're talking about internet comments. It isn't "raised above" simply because it's Slashdot. You are no better than a YouTube commenter.
94. Re:Excellent! by bckrispi · 2011-12-07 07:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Exactly. The last time I was summoned for Jury Duty, the judge told us "raise your hand if you will consider anything beyond the evidence and your instructions during deliberations." Out of a pool of about 100, mine was the only hand to go up. I was under oath, and had to answer honestly. When questioned personally about my action, I informed the Judge, "It is my belief that our Constitution does not forbid jury nullification. As a juror, who has the potential to legally strip a defendant of liberty and property, I am the final arbiter of 'justice' in the application of the law, and the only thing standing between a defendant, and punishment for a law which may be unfair. In an extreme case, I cannot guarantee I would not use this power to nullify." The judge nodded and subtly smiled, apparently somewhat amused. The defense attorney's smile was more pronounced. And I could easily hear the Prosecuting attorney's pen as it scratched my name off his list.
  
  --
  Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
95. Re:Excellent! by bostongraf · 2011-12-07 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Please mod this one up! Cuts through the revenge impulse and gets to the practical aspects of what you are causing.
96. Re:Excellent! by Velox_SwiftFox · 2011-12-07 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually politicians like to interpret a constituent's right to petition the government broadly.
  It allows lobbyists to be a fruitful source of support.
97. Re:Excellent! by realityimpaired · 2011-12-07 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Not in Bridge, no... you can pass during the bidding, if you don't think you'll be able to win 6 tricks. If all 4 players pass, then you re-deal... the idea with most forms of Bridge is to bid as little as possible, and then win as many tricks as possible. There is a version of Contract Bridge where you get penalized for winning more tricks than you bid, in the same way you'd get penalized for winning fewer than you bid, but yeah. :)
98. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · 2011-12-07 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is completely different from "petition the government for a redress of grievances", as well as it being something that the politicians are inviting.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
99. Re:Excellent! by Fjandr · 2011-12-07 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I am saying the Oregon State jury instructions directly contradict the Oregon State Constitution.
  Article 1, Sec. 16 Oregon Constitution:
  Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.–In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
  Juror Handbook as published by the Oregon State Bar Association:
  The trial judge presides over the trial and decides what laws apply. The judge then instructs the jury as to the correct law in each case. Although some people may claim that a jury can “nullify” the law, this view is legally incorrect and severely prejudices the administration of justice. Jurors who disregard the trial judge’s instructions have violated their oath.
100. Re:Excellent! by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-07 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  I caused a reaction, which means I affected him enough to cause him to act. :-D
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
101. Re:Excellent! by demonlapin · 2011-12-07 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know who you're replying to, but it wasn't me.
102. Re:Excellent! by demonlapin · 2011-12-07 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't mention it in this comment, but I don't even live in his district. I never have, although I once lived in a ZIP code that he mostly represented and ported my telephone number when I moved. I suppose the only thing I really could do is go to a city council meeting and personally hound the guy, but... he and I disagree on almost every political topic that people can possibly disagree on (it's not just Team Red/Team Blue, I mean almost everything) and since it's not illegal for him to call me, I'm pretty sure that he would just take that as an invitation to put me on every one of his robocall lists.
103. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · 2011-12-08 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I know you can pass, but if you are going to bid, isn't there a minimum amount you have to bid? The open, so to speak?
104. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-11 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Still their office. I want the bastard who put me on a robocall list that calls my house phone as early as 6 AM or as late as 10 PM (yes, it does, and no, the secretary of state's office says it's not actually illegal and they can't do anything about it) strung up by the balls.
  Try asking the Attorney General's office about it.
105. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. In this day and age, they have you put on "No Fly Lists", etc, to make sure your life becomes as miserable as possible. If that doesn't work, they instigate investigations into you, your friends and family, and they makes sure you find out about it happening, but not who or why. If that doesn't work, you might find yourself visiting a place like Guantanamo with no access to a lawyer, or sunlight for that matter.
  Get it?
106. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 21:59 · Score: 0
  
  The next time Someone said a blog, ws sign Iâ(TM)m hoping that it doesnt dissatisfy me as a lot as this one. I mean, I know it has been my selection to study nike high heels
Legality? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-12-06 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is this legal? Didn't they specifically write exemptions into the do-not-call list legislation exempting political parties?

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
1. Re:Legality? by OzPeter · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is this legal? Didn't they specifically write exemptions into the do-not-call list legislation exempting political parties?
  Well if they do what other robo-companies do and host it outside of the US, then no laws will be broken
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
2. Re:Legality? by eln · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes. Yes they did.
  Also, repeatedly calling the same number with the same message (as opposed to calling many numbers with the same message like the campaigns do) could be considered harassment.
3. Re:Legality? by afidel · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually the do-not-call legislation only covers entities which "engage in any "telemarketing" or "telephone solicitation" activities, as defined by the FTC and FCC, respectively.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
4. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  So form a political party with one goal - to change that law - and start calling politicians' home phones with a frequency just outside what is considered harassment.
5. Re:Legality? by v1 · 2011-12-06 10:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They have made themselves one of the explicit exceptions to the automated dialing laws they passed. "Here's a law that stops our voters from being harassed over the phone by everyone, except us of course."
  There are a few additional exceptions, but not many. There ought to be a law that bans electoral bodies from passing laws with provisions to make the voting body an exception to the law being passed. Just one of those "I can't believe they had the balls to do that" stunts by our country's legislature. Really, if they can get away with that, they can get away with about anything.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
6. Re:Legality? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-12-06 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  There ought to be a law that bans electoral bodies from passing laws with provisions to make the voting body an exception to the law being passed.
  Except that these are exceptionally cheap to operate. If you ban them altogether, then you make running for office that much more expensive. Political 'speech' is not something to be restricted lightly.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
7. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  [...] with a frequency just outside what is considered harassment.
  Ah, the naiveté of the cloistered nerd who honestly thinks the legal world operates in terms of discrete numbers and absolute, binary logic. A soul that's just oh-so-ripe for the crushing when the real world turns out to be bigger than they thought and that everyone else didn't grow up programming computers all day long. I can almost hear the angsty, whiny screams of depression from here! And... wait, wait.... is that a "that's not fair" I hear? Liberally covered with profanities? Bliss! Like music to my ears! Your bitter, bitter tears will amuse politicians and lawyers for years to come!
8. Re:Legality? by msobkow · 2011-12-06 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's such a cop-out on the part of the telcos. They could and should easily block the calling numbers used by the robodialing scamers who use out-of-country equipment.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
9. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  >repeatedly calling the same number with the same message
  The site doesn't do this. You would have to go out of your way to do this through the reverserobocall site. It records one message from you and calls the list of politicians and organizations one time each.
10. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  A tragic case of joke blindness. And being a twat.
11. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  get a dictionary. an english dictionary. look-up 'solicitation'. if you still can't see how political campaigning falls under solicitation, close the dictionary, return your computer to the store, and just use the dictionary as toilet paper while you watch "Oh My Balls" in your living room toilet chair.
12. Re:Legality? by nelk · 2011-12-06 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  There ought to be a law that bans electoral bodies from passing laws with provisions to make the voting body an exception to the law being passed.
  Except that these are exceptionally cheap to operate. If you ban them altogether, then you make running for office that much more expensive. Political 'speech' is not something to be restricted lightly.
  Besides, they would probably just exempt themselves from the 'We cant exempt ourselves' law :(
  
  --
  No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
13. Re:Legality? by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  There is a law against it. It's the elections law. You voted them into power, then voted to keep them there after they did it. You have the power and refuse to use it. Where the campaign money goes doesn't matter if the voters would vote intelligently.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
14. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Reading comprehension fail. What good is a dictionary when it is
  as defined by the FTC and FCC, respectively.
  If you are going to be insulting at least be intelligent about it.
15. Re:Legality? by Khashishi · 2011-12-06 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's why we have a jury system. To judge the law.
16. Re:Legality? by arkenian · 2011-12-06 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's why we have a jury system. To judge the law.
  Actually, mostly, we have a jury system to guard against corrupt judges. The idea of a jury of your peers is that the monarch can't lean on any one judge (who is paid by the monarch, no less) to convict on a baseless crime. The point of "of your peers" being that the presumption is that they'd be able to tell if the evidence was falsified . . . since this is most famously established in the magna carta referring to the nobility, the ancillary assumption was that they would be fully aware of the political reasoning behind any charges. But this idea that juries are for judging the law really has only the shakiest of bases. Although that jury nullification exists to prevent gross misapplication of the law is fairly sound.
17. Re:Legality? by initialE · 2011-12-06 15:18 · Score: 2
  
  If they call you first, aren't they soliciting a reply?
  
  --
  Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
18. Re:Legality? by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-06 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is this legal?
  I will make it Legal!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
19. Re:Legality? by v1 · 2011-12-06 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Where the campaign money goes doesn't matter if the voters would vote intelligently.
  You find me an intelligent ("politically-educated anyway) majority of voters somewhere on the planet, you tell me where. I'll move.
  I've gotten over blaming the politicians and congresscritters - it's the voters that have flushed us down the toilet. The politicians do it, but the voters allow it to continue.
  It's interesting to see how times have changed and not changed - we have an electoral college because back in 'th day, the average citizen didn't know what was going on in the country or have a good opinion of what was the best overall things to do. Sadly, times apparently haven't changed much. Legislation still occurs without the best interest of the country or the public as the highest priority. Politicians don't listen to popular opinion when it happens to be working on a collectively intelligent plan (DRM), and then does listen when the voting majority is being a selfish, short-sighted bunch of idiots. (tax cuts) Only thing for the average citizen to do is stock up on antacid.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
20. Re:Legality? by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  http://freestateproject.org/
  
  That's the closest you'll come.
  
  You noticed I blamed the voters, right? They have caused the mess we are in, buying the lies the Republicrats sold.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
21. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 18:11 · Score: 0
  
  Switzerland.
22. Re:Legality? by ppanon · 2011-12-06 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, here in BC at least, political parties don't use some recorded message telling me to "Please Wait" (Why? You called me!) while they line up a low-wage employee, but instead have somebody (probably an unpaid volunteer) talking to me immediately. The former gets a marketer hung up and the # blacklisted in my phone before I ever speak to someone, whereas the latter gives them a few seconds to hold my attention.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
23. Re:Legality? by Bucky24 · 2011-12-06 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, the GOP hardly has a monopoly on the selling of lies.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
24. Re:Legality? by AK+Marc · 2011-12-06 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody ever said otherwise.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re:Legality? by makomk · 2011-12-06 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  If I recall correctly, voting was one of the usual examples of rational ignorance. The amount of effort required by a voter to cut through all the political spin and figure out what each politician actually supports and how it would affect them hugely outweighs any benefit they could expect to gain from doing so, because their vote alone has very little effect. Of course it's actually even worse than this since people aren't rational in the first place!
26. Re:Legality? by v1 · 2011-12-07 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Very short article, but very interesting reading, thank you.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
27. Re:Legality? by ehlo · 2011-12-07 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to disagree with you and agree with eln, the only pre-requisite as far as how many times it has happened to amount to a tortious claim in harassment is that it has happened more than once one more than one occasion. To give you an example, if your girlfriend dumps you and you call her all afternoon, that does not constitute harassment: you would have to do it again the next day.
  You would have no recourse in the criminal law, the calls would have to amount to a battery arising from an immediate apprehension of fear of physical violence (subjective). Civil litigation would be the way to go and the test is set out for you above.
28. Re:Legality? by jahudabudy · 2011-12-07 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite is the pay raises scam. Congressional members can't benefit from pay raises they voted themselves during the term for which they voted. So in the past, those poor Congressmen had to vote themselves a pay raise and hope they won reelection in order to take advantage of it. Then some bright spark proposed a bill that gave them automatic pay raises, unless they voted to NOT get a raise. Of course the bill became law and Voila! they now instantly get their pay raises without having to wait till the next election cycle. Bonus points - they don't have to answer to their electorate for voting themselves a pay raise during widespread economic downturns.
  
  --
  ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
29. Re:Legality? by shentino · 2011-12-07 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  And the politicians are in the pockets of the same corporate giants that use the media to keep the voting public in the dark.
  And who also use the same media to smear anyone trying to expose them.
30. Re:Legality? by s73v3r · 2011-12-07 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  The exemptions are for political organizations. I would imagine these guys are going to claim they are one.
Very nice by ericloewe · 2011-12-06 10:24 · Score: 2

How come nobody had ever thought of this? It's pure genius. Now, a similar option for telemarketers would be even better...
1. Re:Very nice by afidel · 2011-12-06 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting idea, since businesses aren't covered by the do not call registry you'd be clear there, but you still might fall afoul of harassment laws if you repeatedly call the same party. Perhaps a better implementation might be to get a large list of inbound campaign (telemarketing not political) numbers and allow you to sign up to call those which you select from a list, if enough people do this it might drive down the profitability of such call centers. Personally since I almost never give out my home number and it's not listed in any phone book (VoIP provider) I basically never receive telemarketing calls except those from obviously fraudulant robo-dialers which are stupidly calling every number (real call campaigns have sophisticated data mining to maximize potential return per call placed).
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This will be banned by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-12-06 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't forget who's in charge.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Arrest the cheaters by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:26 · Score: 1

Weren't there republicans purposely annoying people with robocalls from the other party a few elections ago?
Bipartisan? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:28 · Score: 0

Making this illegal could be the only thing in a long while that all of congress can agree on....
1. Re:Bipartisan? by green1 · 2011-12-06 10:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I can't speak for the US, but in Canada Robo-calls are already illegal... unless you're a politician... must be nice to be able to write yourself an exemption in to any law you pass.
  I generally make it a policy never to vote for anyone who uses such scummy practices. Problem is, I believe that I should vote, and last election there weren't any candidates on the ballot who hadn't robo-called my cell phone at least once, one of them almost 10 times!
2. Re:Bipartisan? by Fned · 2011-12-06 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for the US, but in Canada Robo-calls are already illegal...
  ...from Canada.
  I'm just sayin'.
3. Re:Bipartisan? by gstoddart · 2011-12-06 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for the US, but in Canada Robo-calls are already illegal
  Yeah, like that's working.
  I've gotten to the point where if I don't immediately know the number (or if you can't show me in the first 15 seconds that you are someone I do business with) then I just have to assume the caller is fraudulent and tell them to fsck themselves.
  I get so many &^%#^%*( robo-calls in a week the fact that it's ostensibly illegal is almost laughable. There's no teeth to the enforcement, and the people calling from the US or internationally do it with impunity.
  I mean, come on, do you really think I believe you work for "the windows service provider" or that my machine seems to be causing alerts when you're calling me from a (probably fake) number in Texas?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Bipartisan? by mark-t · 2011-12-06 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for the US, but in Canada Robo-calls are already illegal
  Citation, please. What section of the criminal code covers this?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Bipartisan? by green1 · 2011-12-06 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-6 Section IV
  http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/dt2008-6.htm#m4
  (as for what role the CRTC has in such matters... you can look that up yourself, but they do have the force of law behind their decisions)
6. Re:Bipartisan? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-12-06 12:04 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the last robocall that called me WAS calling from Texas. I got through to a real person, and my opening gambit was "what part of the US is your call centre located in?" He must have been new, because he answered, and was then very confused. I then explained to him that the people who hired the people who hired his call centre were engaged in illegal activity, in contravention of numerous laws, and asked to speak to his manager. HE didn't know what to do, but eventually I heard the click of someone else joining the call, and then it terminated.
  When politicians robocall, I just respond with an email stating that there's a reason we have DNC lists and antispam laws... and if they want to continue to be popular, they'll honour their constituent's right to privacy.
  Amazingly, this results in only one call per party per election. Except the Green party... they can't afford a robocaller, so they end up with a bunch of wooden placards littering the landscape instead.
7. Re:Bipartisan? by realityimpaired · 2011-12-06 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to the Conservatives. They're using robodiallers on their political campaigns, even though the rules say quite clearly that the rules for robodiallers apply regardless of whether the person on whose behalf the calls are being made is exempt from DNC rules, and that robodiallers may not be used without express consent, which is defined as an explicit oral or written contract permitting this kind of communication.
  I am going to bookmark that one for the next political campaign in the area, and use it to file a grievance with the CRTC.
8. Re:Bipartisan? by rueger · 2011-12-06 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Local extremely idiot municipal candidate not only robocalled on E-day, he managed to call both of our numbers at least ten times. Before 9 am.
  
  And got Bonus Points because he kept robocalling people in a different city from the one where he was running.
  
  AND Got Extra Super Bonus Points for blaming the computer and saying that he couldn't control how it called.
  
  AND AND Got Mega-Stupendous Super Extra OMFG PONIES Bonus Points because neither the robodial phone number or his campaign office had anyone answering phones, and his voicemail box was (surprise...) full.
  
  --
  Three Squirrels
9. Re:Bipartisan? by WhatAreYouDoingHere · 2011-12-06 16:43 · Score: 2
  
  I've gotten to the point where if I don't immediately know the number (or if you can't show me in the first 15 seconds that you are someone I do business with) then I just have to assume the caller is fraudulent and tell them to fsck themselves.
  As a Windows user, I tell them to chkdsk themselves. They usually hang up after that.
  
  --
  "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
10. Re:Bipartisan? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't prohibit ADADs, it just puts very strict rules on their use. Businesses can still use them, and do still use them legally, but they need to do things like including a name, phone number, and address in the call. Not illegal
11. Re:Bipartisan? by green1 · 2011-12-08 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  technically you are correct, however one of the strict rules you refer to is that they must have explicit prior consent of the person they are calling. And I can tell you that there are currently NO organizations on this planet who have my consent to robodial me.
12. Re:Bipartisan? by green1 · 2011-12-08 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's interesting that you point out that the decision doesn't appear to exempt political parties on the robodial rules. As for "Tell that to the Conservatives"... how about also telling it to the Liberals, the NDP, and even an independent candidate in my riding last election. Every one of them Robodialled me.
Greetings friends, by cupantae · 2011-12-06 10:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now.
So, use it! And send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield.
Don't delay, eternal happiness is just a dollar away.

--
--
1. Re:Greetings friends, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  Heh. That's your real address, isn't it?
2. Re:Greetings friends, by oodaloop · 2011-12-06 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  What state is that in?
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
3. Re:Greetings friends, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Meh. I'd be happier WITH the dollar...
see you in court by Joe_Dragon · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 1

and take the auto dialer with you or I will have no case.
Ok then! by Born2bwire · 2011-12-06 10:30 · Score: 1

Where's the all of the above option here...
Get organized, synchronized; target and FIRE!.... by rts008 · 2011-12-06 10:35 · Score: 1

Combine this with an ideological movement group, and twitter/facebook, and hilarity ensues...until it's banned.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Sweet! by RobinEggs · 2011-12-06 10:38 · Score: 1

Time to harass some elected officials in my new state of North Carolina.

"Governor Perdue, why did you sign a bill, written by Time Warner lobbyists, which effectively banned municipal broadband in North Carolina?"
No, very very stupid. by syousef · 2011-12-06 10:38 · Score: 0

How come nobody had ever thought of this? It's pure genius. Now, a similar option for telemarketers would be even better...
It's very nice for the people selling the services, at least until the law catches up with them. They get to charge the politicians for spam, and now the voters to spam back. Meanwhile if a politician gets too many robocalls, he simply involves the police or disconnects the number - using - wait for it - your tax dollars.
In other words for voters this is about as genius as beating their own head to a pulp against a brick wall.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1. Re:No, very very stupid. by afidel · 2011-12-06 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  Political campaigns aren't funded by tax dollars (unless they agree to take only public funds which hasn't really been done since Carter vs Reagan).
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
2. Re:No, very very stupid. by Riceballsan · 2011-12-06 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Campaigns aren't but law enforcement is. Legislators don't send their private body guards after you, they send the police, or the FBI or whatever other organizations they can get in on it.
3. Re:No, very very stupid. by afidel · 2011-12-06 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not likely, political speech gets the broadest possible protection under the first amendment.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
4. Re:No, very very stupid. by Riceballsan · 2011-12-06 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Political speech is speech done by a politician. Not speech too a politician. Politicians themselves have the largest degree of protection, and if the message is just a complaint then they will call it harassment, and if the message against them has anything resembling a threat, it won't just be the police, it will be homeland security.
5. Re:No, very very stupid. by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-12-06 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  (unless they agree to take only public funds which hasn't really been done since Carter vs Reagan)
  Just remember, just one Presidential candidate since the invention of the Federal matching funds for campaigning has refused that funding and the spending caps that go along with it...
  I'm slightly curious whether he'll manage to raise enough money that he's willing to do it again....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
6. Re:No, very very stupid. by syousef · 2011-12-06 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Political campaigns aren't funded by tax dollars (unless they agree to take only public funds which hasn't really been done since Carter vs Reagan).
  That is just a matter of shuffling cash around so it looks like they are private funds. Occasionally they get caught.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
7. Re:No, very very stupid. by demonlapin · 2011-12-06 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  They can have matching funds if they agree to campaign spending limits. Sen. Obama declined the matching funds; Sen. McCain took them. Sen. Obama made a calculated decision that paid off for him.
8. Re:No, very very stupid. by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-12-06 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  So who was it? Remember, not everyone on slashdot is American.
9. Re:No, very very stupid. by zippthorne · 2011-12-06 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Those aren't supposed to come out of the tax coffers, though. Allegedly, they come from that line on your tax return where you agree to donate $x for political campaigns, that I assume everyone must say, "oh, that sounds like a good cause" and checks off.....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
10. Re:No, very very stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  I will not listen "too" an assessment of the English language made by someone who uses the wrong "to" in a sentence fragment
11. Re:No, very very stupid. by Bucky24 · 2011-12-06 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  President Obama's campaign was (AFAIK) entirely grassroots, all money raised from donations by citizens. At least I think that's what GP was talking about.
  
  And I doubt he'll manage to do it again.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
12. Re:No, very very stupid. by afidel · 2011-12-07 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Money is fungible, just because they move it from account A to account B and say it doesn't effect your return doesn't mean it doesn't effect the tax (or currently borrowing) structure of the government. Of course even if every federal election was fully funded by the act it would still be less than a month in Iraq of Afghanistan.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
13. Re:No, very very stupid. by demonlapin · 2011-12-07 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, where do you think that $x box's money comes from? Government can only get money by taxing people to get it now, borrowing it now and paying for it out of later tax receipts, or printing it (which is effectively a tax on bank accounts).
14. Re:No, very very stupid. by zippthorne · 2011-12-09 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Wait.. what? It doesn't affect your return when you check the box??!? So.. you're "donating" other people's money if you check it?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
DDOS? by Synesthes · 2011-12-06 10:42 · Score: 1

Interesting. A way to DDOS a politician? Almost worth the money. Wish we could do that in Canada...
1. Re:DDOS? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2011-12-06 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, give the cost it seems you'd be launching a DDOS on your ability to pay for other things. I'm not sure why the phreaks never did this back in the day. Like, what the hell were you doing with all of that knowledge and capability, if not annoying the heck out of our representatives? If I ever build a time machine that goes backwards into time, captain crunch will be hearing from me.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
In Soviet Russia by Roachie · 2011-12-06 10:43 · Score: 1

Politician turn table on YOU!

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Great way to get ignored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:44 · Score: 0

Politicians want to hear from people in their district. The moment the staffer realizes it's a robocall, they will HANG UP and not even record the fact that you called. If you call repeatedly, it still only gets you marked down once, until the staffer realizes that you do nothing but robocall at which time you get marked down zero times.
Anyone using this to advocate an issue is doing active harm to their cause. Call your politician your damn self. It's free.
Legality? S.W.A.T. Bait ! by da5idnetlimit.com · 2011-12-06 10:46 · Score: 1

http://reverserobocall.com/products/barak-obama-2-offices
No.Comment.
Ah yes, maybe.
If you try... and it works... and you survive...
Please post 8p

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
What bothers me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:46 · Score: 0

...is I can't see any indication of how many times the spam call is sent out before they require more money. Am I paying for one call or for one hundred?
1. Re:What bothers me... by sexconker · 2011-12-06 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  You pay for 1 call, regardless of whether or not it's answered.
Great way to *make a point* by RobinEggs · 2011-12-06 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Politicians want to hear from people in their district. The moment the staffer realizes it's a robocall, they will HANG UP and not even record the fact that you called. If you call repeatedly, it still only gets you marked down once, until the staffer realizes that you do nothing but robocall at which time you get marked down zero times.
Anyone using this to advocate an issue is doing active harm to their cause. Call your politician your damn self. It's free.
The point is showing politicians how crass and condescending it is to call someone on the phone with a pre-recorded message.

If they realize you're a robot, start ignoring you, and no one draws any parallels to their own campaign tactics then it probably can't be saved - both the politicians' intelligence and that of voters who respond positively to robocalls - but at least you tried.

My first thought for using the system was harassing corrupt and ignorant jerks, with an ironic twist; I don't think anyone really expects much more from this than a symbolic gesture or some pranks/harassment.
You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 10:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

...you're just making the staffers' lives miserable. The ones that sometimes struggle to survive in the DC area due to the cost of living if they're new. The ones with 4 roommates and 2 other jobs. You won't affect your representative, but you will be a jerk. Congratulations.
1. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  This has to be better than the calls staffers already get. Those, they have to fake interest and attempt to converse with the rubes on the phone.
  Though I bet it'd really make them miserable if you pretend to be a real caller for the first part of the call.
  "Oh hi, I'm calling to speak with you about the... hello, are you there?" (pause) "Oh, hello. I'm calling about... hello? It's cutting out a b... oh, there you are. I... I wanted to say that automated calls are a nuisance. They interrupt" (continue regular message here.)
2. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  In this case I would not give a fuck.
3. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  you might as well say the protesters in a dictactorship shouldn't protest because they will not affect the dictator, they will just make the life of police and military
  miserable because they are the ones that have to shoot them
4. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Reziac · 2011-12-06 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  Considering that the staffers actually write the text of most bills, and considering what a lot of crap has come down the legislative pike in recent years... Serves 'em right.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
5. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...you're just making the staffers' lives miserable. The ones that sometimes struggle to survive in the DC area due to the cost of living if they're new. The ones with 4 roommates and 2 other jobs. You won't affect your representative, but you will be a jerk. Congratulations.
  Yeah, sorry, but nothing you say will cause me to feel any sympathy whatsoever for the miserable life of some loser staffer of a corrupt robocalling piece of garbage politician who cares not one whit for the wishes of their constituents. If even one staffer of robocalling scum is driven to tears, that's a win.
6. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying... I make the lives of "staffers" who aid and abet their jerk miserable?
  Where do I sign up?
  If you support the problem, enable the problem, contribute to the problem, finance the problem ... You're part of the problem.
  Brought to you by someone who stuffs prepaid envelopes with other companies' outer envelopes and sends them back rather than unsubscribe from credit offers. Because I may as well support the USPS and raise the cost of UCBM.
7. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Indy1 · 2011-12-06 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck em. If they decide to be whores for a bunch of vote buying fascists and communists, that's their problem, not mine.
  They can get a real job doing something useful for a change.
  
  --
  Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
8. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I think it's the lobbyists who write most of the bills or have small sections deleted or added by the staffers. It's probably a typist who transcribes it if it happens to be a bill from that congressman.
  If staffers can't stand the heat, and the perks (free drinks, dinners, tickets, etc.) from lobbyists, and good jobs that follow then they should not have joined.
9. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Don't get the haters on this one. The OP is spot on. Hate to interrupt the hate with some facts, but ...
  1. The staff answering the phones are so far away (legally and in reality) from the campaigns doing the robocalls. The law prohibits this sort of stuff being done with official resources.
  2. Many of them are there because they want to improve the process and outcomes. In spite of the miserable pay and working conditions. I'd call that doing something useful, no?
  3. The bills you hate ... over 90% are written by committees and party leadership, especially in the House. Personal office staff generally gets to do no more than recommend yea or nay and offer small, incremental amendments. Even when they come up with a good idea ... committee gets to rewrite it.
  4. If you jam up the lines, you are denying others the ability to petition their government. Possibly for help, possibly to register opinions on legislation. Selfish.
  If you really want to do this, get the number for the campaign office. Or, as some have said,party offices.
10. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck kind of rationale is this? Seriously? Staffers in a bleeding democracy are somehow equated to the SS? Is this really the level slashdot has sunk to when THIS gets modded insightful?
11. Re:You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  I fail to see how "receiving calls" could be construed as annoying to someone whose job is to receive calls. "Oh, these calls aren't interesting" is not a valid complaint. It's not like the staffers are paid based on the number of human constituent calls they receive in a day, so this should have zero effect on them.
Creative answering machine message by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:02 · Score: 0

I just use a creative answering machine message. Something to the extent of:
"Hello. You've reached the residence of [Insert Name here]. If you are calling on behalf of a business that I have no prior relationship with, a charity asking for a donation, a survey, a political party, or a politician, you may make use of my answering machine for the price of one hundred thousand dollars per message. I will waive this fee in all other cases.
"If you do not agree to these terms, you may hang up at any time before the message starts recording. Otherwise, leave a message, including your name, the name of the party that you represent, and the billing address. Have a nice day!"
Most human beings hang up before the beep. But those automated callers have technically made me a millionaire. At least, that's what my Accounts Receivable claim. Now if I could only manage to collect on those debts...
1. Re:Creative answering machine message by HooptieJ · 2011-12-07 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  After working debt collections USING a robo-dialer .. (you know the one that calls and goes "press 4 to speak to a rep" then slaps you on hold for an hour) - I can say that we collected on debts with less proof, sign up a collections agency and send em to work .
the "don't spam me, bro" party! by Thud457 · 2011-12-06 11:04 · Score: 1

Hello, this is Homer Simpson, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.

Face it, if they're spamming you they're scamsters and don't respect you. eg Congress

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The right S/W, a PC, a modem, and a POTS line by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:08 · Score: 0

and you should be able to robo call your representative for free.
(Or maybe there's an Apple app for that.)
Kind of a grass roots force multiplier.
Seems only fair.
And fun too.
Easier and cheaper by DogDude · 2011-12-06 11:08 · Score: 1

This also works well for junk faxers: Just set a modem to auto-redial. It's easy. It's effective. Heck, I've heard of people setting the modem to auto-redial on a phone line that's rarely used (like a fax line), and simply forgetting about it for a few days.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
I remember they repeatedly called me at one point. by Lohrno · 2011-12-06 11:10 · Score: 2

I haven't gotten one of these lately, but I did a while back get a political call that was very annoying. I hung up and the phone rang again continuing with the message. I hung up again, and it called me back. This was like 6-10 years ago I think. That can't be kosher..
Don't also forget to vote! by The+Creator · 2011-12-06 11:12 · Score: 1

For any candidate who did not robocall you.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
$2.49 per call! by doug141 · 2011-12-06 11:43 · Score: 1

Expensive.
1. Re:$2.49 per call! by Shadow99_1 · 2011-12-06 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are better deals though, like calling all the SOPA/PIPA supporters is only $24.99!
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
2. Re:$2.49 per call! by Thing+1 · 2011-12-06 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  I admire your subversion.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
That wont work. Some are deceptive by Marrow · 2011-12-06 11:43 · Score: 1

Some robocalls have been deliberately deceptive: they are run by the opposing candidate using a voice actor to sound like the opponent and made as obnoxious as possible. They were pretending to support the candidate they were trying to defeat.
I already do this. by MrEricSir · 2011-12-06 11:47 · Score: 5, Funny

A while back I donated money to the ACLU. I thought it would go towards defending civil liberties, but it turned out my donation was used to pay a company to repeatedly call me and ask for more money.
After a few hours of research, I found the private home phone number of their CEO. A few days worth of repeatedly calling him and hanging up got my number off their list forever.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:I already do this. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-12-06 11:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A while back I donated money to the ACLU. I thought it would go towards defending civil liberties, but it turned out my donation was used to pay a company to repeatedly call me and ask for more money.
  THIS.
  That's exactly why I am loathe to donate to any charity. I just don't know what else they will do with the transactional information and its bullshit that I should even have to worry about it. I only give cash to places I can walk in to. The EFF is happy to take walk in cash donations, BTW.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
2. Re:I already do this. by ShakaUVM · 2011-12-06 17:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >>I only give cash to places I can walk in to. The EFF is happy to take walk in cash donations, BTW.
  While donating to the EFF gets you on their spam list, their spam is actually worth reading most of the time.
3. Re:I already do this. by MrEricSir · 2011-12-06 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  Good to know about the EFF. I work near their HQ and have lunch with those guys every now and then.
  One time RMS himself even showed up for lunch with us. His "pleasure card" is still sitting on my desk.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
4. Re:I already do this. by cloudmaster · 2011-12-06 18:04 · Score: 2
  
  Why are you hoarding his card? Information wants to be free - you should give it away. And if you give it to someone who says "Thank You", punch them in the mouth, because getting compensated for work like that is a sign that you've fallen victim to moral decay!
5. Re:I already do this. by jittles · 2011-12-07 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, you can't even donate blood without getting called ALL the time. It drives me nuts. I donate blood when I can. Don't call me every 8 weeks just because I am O- and CMV negative. I'm not a freaking blood factory, I have my own life to live.
6. Re:I already do this. by shentino · 2011-12-07 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then that begs the question of whether it's really spam.
Oh, pawns can't move that way, you stupid arm! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 11:52 · Score: 0

Why it's the AT-5000 Auto-Dialer. My very first patent. Aw, would you listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert schoolchildren about snow days and such. Well, let's get you home to Frinky.
Reverse psychology by Insightfill · 2011-12-06 11:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Starting in about the 2004 election, the tactics of the local election robocalls changed quite a bit. The call would start out with a line like: "Hi! I'd like to talk to you about candidate Mark Smith..."
At that point, you'd hang up thinking "Damn Mark Smith!" BUT: what you didn't know was that a few more minutes into the call, you'd discover that the call was sponsored by Mark's opponent, and if you had stayed on long enough, you would have heard about Mark's failings and how good his opponent was.
If you were on the fence before the call, you SURE weren't going to vote for Mark after a dozen of THOSE calls.
The "R"s used this a LOT in 2004, and it has picked up every year since then.
Slime.
1. Re:Reverse psychology by bussdriver · 2011-12-06 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  I noticed this shift as well. Sneaky clever.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
2. Re:Reverse psychology by cloudmaster · 2011-12-06 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't usually remember the name afterwards anyway. Hooray for a short attention span!
Pulte vs. LIU by dcollins · 2011-12-06 11:58 · Score: 2

Just this past summer the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a union could be held liable under computer hacking laws (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) for doing exactly this -- using a combination of auto-dialing and member phone calls to protest an action, and thus filling up the business' voicemail and making the lines unavailable for a period of time:
http://computerfraud.us/articles/can-a-labor-union-be-sued-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-spamming-an-employer%E2%80%99s-voice-and-email-systems

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
1. Re:Pulte vs. LIU by Overzeetop · 2011-12-06 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  But that was not political speech. A fine hair to split, but a hair nonetheless.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
To make this work it needs to call cell phones by schwit1 · 2011-12-06 12:18 · Score: 1

And it needs to be annoying both in destination and time of day.
Unexpected consequences by junglebeast · 2011-12-06 12:37 · Score: 2

While I am ALL for bombarding our sometimes misguided, uninformed or overzealous congressmen with public opinion...I have a fear that giving people the ability to set up automated calling in this fashion would just overwhelm their call centers to the point where they just stop picking up the phone and listening to the public at all.
1. Re:Unexpected consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  just overwhelm their call centers to the point where they just stop picking up the phone and listening to the public at all.
  And when, pray tell, did they ever do that?
2. Re:Unexpected consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  So... you're saying the difference would be that they wouldn't be picking up the phones?
  I'm okay with that.
This is good by bratwiz · 2011-12-06 13:10 · Score: 1

So now how can we expand this marvelous service to include pollsters, banks, realtors, obnoxious sales people, wall street brokers, anybody with a "good deal", scammers and my cousin Freddie who just can't figure out that some people actually *sleep* at night?
1. Re:This is good by dintech · 2011-12-06 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Disconnect your landline and set up a whitelist on your cell phone:
  http://www.howtogeek.com/94523/semisilent-is-a-ringer-white-list-for-android-phones/
  There's an equivalent for jailbroken iphones too.
Re:That wont work. Some are deceptive by arkenian · 2011-12-06 15:18 · Score: 1

So you're supposed to have a tag line at the end of the call explicitly stating who paid for the call. Maryland, today, convicted someone for illegal political robocalls designed to suppress votes. Among the critical points was the lack of the tag line. I don't think he's been sentenced yet, but looks like jail time is expected. (Personally, I think stocks would be much more appropriate in cases like this, but you have to take what you can get, I guess.)
Another method by Thomas+Shaddack · 2011-12-06 16:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

If the service gets shut down, there could be an alternative. There are smartphones in every other pocket, or so. An app that dials a number and plays a sound file, networked with other such phones in a botnet-style way (opt-in, and users able to decide what calls they approve of), without any central authority, fits into this scheme. The politicos in question then can not even block the calls based on incoming number, as each number will belong to a real person, and no number will be calling more than once per a fairly long period, which is not sufficient for harassment charges.
Using this on politicos' personal phone numbers at 6 AM would be the real fair game. If only one of ten people woken up by a robocall participate in this, it has a chance of quite decent success.
If they annoy us, let's annoy them! We can do it, we have the technology.
1. Re:Another method by kibbey · 2011-12-07 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  That would be brilliant to setup and run for a few days! Obambi and company would probably declare it a terrorist denial of service attack.
Re:Get organized, synchronized; target and FIRE!.. by Bucky24 · 2011-12-06 19:10 · Score: 1

A year later someone figures out how to crowdsource it :D (actually it probably won't even take that long)

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Why do they use robocalls? by 91degrees · 2011-12-06 20:35 · Score: 2

Do they actually work? A disproportionate number of people are deeply irritated by being disturbed by a recorded message. Only a small number are going to listen to the pitch.

I'd have thought the hatred caused by spam would essentially eliminate any benefit of those who don't mind and are willing to listen.
In United States the reciever pays for calls! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 22:14 · Score: 0

In some other countries the caller pays. Fixes a lot of problems.
1. Re:In United States the reciever pays for calls! by Tommy+Bologna · 2011-12-07 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no. The receiver doesn't pay for calls in the US, unless you have an 800-number or a cellphone.
Do It Yourself. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 22:29 · Score: 0

Instead of just being very vague to try and sound insightful, please specifically lay out for me
No. Do it yourself.
If you're too goddamned lazy to become and stay informed, perhaps you deserve legal infinite detention by your own military in your own country (sic) and/or legal assassination at the whim of your own president (with no need for trial, proof of guilt or conviction).
1. Re:Do It Yourself. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Um...how is one supposed to find out for him/herself what makes someone else believe something? It's not a matter of being lazy. You can't find out what makes someone believe something without them telling you what makes them believe it. You can guess, but considering how incredibly different 2 people can perceive the same thing, it's pretty much an impossible task.
I wonder how much this tactic backfires on them by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 22:51 · Score: 0

I for one would NOT vote for a politician who spams me with this phone crap -- regardless of what their actual message is. And I would say so to my friends and colleagues trying to get them to vote differently as well.
Shrub managed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-06 23:45 · Score: 0

The same guy who when governor in Texas produced the most deaths on Death Row than anyone else in their history.
Shrub brought in those laws that allow Obama to bam people.
I guess it was fine and dandy while it was a Republican with that power, huh?
there are no absolutes you know... by way2trivial · 2011-12-07 00:04 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff
"Checking the box does not change the amount of an individual's tax or refund. The $3 is paid by the government. In other words, checking the box causes the federal government to receive $3 less in tax revenue for other spending, than if you hadn't checked the box."

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
If you vote, you're part of a political organisati by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 00:31 · Score: 0

If you vote, you're part of a political organisation.
Sorted.
Brilliant by kiick · 2011-12-07 02:28 · Score: 1

This is a freaking brilliant business idea. Those guys are going to make a fortune. Wish I'd thought of it.
I did this via email by troup · 2011-12-07 02:38 · Score: 1

I once owned OutsourceCongress.org. Basically, it was a site to load up the staffers of Senators and Representatives and allow one to click once and load all the staffer email addresses of a Rep/senator into your mail client. Thus, I didn't send the emails, others did via their ISPs; so they couldn't block me or stop me either. It side-tracked(with ease) around their Contact Me pages at the House/Senate. Plus, you could email your issue straight to the people that matter(Chief of Staff), not some intern that just reads email and counts For/Against on the issue. It was a lot of fun; knowing the same jerks at Rep John Mica's office that mislead us and the Senators that ignored our issue (training our foreign replacement workers on L1 and H-1b visas, then getting laid off) were sometimes getting pounded with emails from all across the country. The best story was Senator Arlen Specter(PA). His chief of staff wrote back to someone saying he was going to turn her into the FBI for "threatening his people". She was a 60+ year old retired teacher. His threat to her made it on the radio here in Orlando, then onto multiple websites with my URL too. He got pounded with emails. My estimate was in 1000's per day, possibly more. I heard he couldn't use his phone(blackberry) because there was so much mail coming down to it. Eventually he changed his email address. They hated me and would constantly ask that they get removed from the list. This thread sortof motivates me to do it again.
1. Re:I did this via email by HooptieJ · 2011-12-07 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  DO IT.
Re:Your asshole is squeezing my cock! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 05:45 · Score: 0

When it's a chicken on the receiving end, it's not an asshole, it's a cloaca. And the chicken won't understand you, so I don't know why you're wasting your breath yelling.
They called you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 07:00 · Score: 0

So you have a "prior business arrangement".
How about a collective effort from Slashdotters to by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-07 08:42 · Score: 0

come up with an open source hardware and software device that blocks all calls except those on a white list?