Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reverse Robocall Turns Tables On Politicians

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

24 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent! by masternerdguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Turnabout is fair play.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 gstoddart · · 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.
    4. Re:Excellent! by amicusNYCL · · 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
    5. Re:Excellent! by Attila+Dimedici · · 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
    6. Re:Excellent! by gstoddart · · 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.
    7. Re:Excellent! by morethanapapercert · · 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
    8. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Asking a stupid person to not vote is like asking a dog to not fart.

    10. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:Excellent! by LordKronos · · 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.

    12. Re:Excellent! by demonlapin · · 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.

    13. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    14. Re:Excellent! by geekmux · · 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.

    15. Re:Excellent! by LordKronos · · 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.

    16. Re:Excellent! by L4t3r4lu5 · · 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/
    17. Re:Excellent! by tbannist · · 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
  2. Legality? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · 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 · · 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?
  3. This will be banned by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget who's in charge.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  4. Great way to *make a point* by RobinEggs · · 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.

  5. You won't reach the representative... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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