Slashdot Mirror


Don't Want a Phonebook? Give Up Your Privacy

newscloud writes "Seattle will soon shut down its popular phonebook opt-out website as a result of a costly settlement with Yellow Pages publishers. Going forward, the only way to stop unwanted phonebook deliveries will be to visit the industry's opt out site and provide them with your personal information. They will share it with their clients, most of whom are direct marketing agencies, who in turn commit not to use it improperly. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled in October that The Yellow Pages represent protected free speech of corporations (including Canada's Yellow Media Inc.); defending and settling the lawsuit cost Seattle taxpayers $781,503. The city said the program's popularity led to a reduction of 2 million pounds of paper waste annually."

357 comments

  1. File a police complaint for littering by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They stop pretty quickly after you do it.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Throw them in the street. Once they starting blocking the drains, etc. the city will take notice.

    2. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing. If it isn't littering, then I should be able to throw trash in anyones yard and call it speech.

    3. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Straight into the recycle bin if you don't want it. When the landfill operators note that they have truckload after truckload of them, someone will make the phone company change the way they do things.

    4. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has already been tested in court against KKK pamphlets... The government has no power to restrict the distribution of racist pamphlets, or for that matter, phone books, just because you don't like them.

      Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.

    5. Re:File a police complaint for littering by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was thinking it would be a good idea to just return it to them. If they have a local office, it would be great if 5000 (or maybe more) people all showed up the day after they were delivered to return them. I think it would really send the message home. That or create some big monument where you collect them all and build a giant statue to show just how much waste is being generated.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:File a police complaint for littering by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally recycle bins don't go to landfills...

      But generally the yellow pages seem to conveniently come on trash day. I just toss them into my recycle bin, and be done with it. They are becoming irrelevant, and eventually people will stop advertising with them.

      Right now they are trying to use what amounts to extortion tactics.

      Formerly: OK, we aren't going to use your product, so don't waste your money on giving it to use.
      Now: OK, you're going to get our product no matter what, unless you want to be annoyed to death.

      Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:File a police complaint for littering by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The city did take notice. And lose the resulting lawsuit.

      It's one thing to not read TFA, but dude, you didn't even read the summary.

    8. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't the city already take note; file a lawsuit; lose said suit...?

      Totally frustrating situation here...and thanks for the suggestion.

    9. Re:File a police complaint for littering by racermd · · Score: 2

      You really need to take it a step further. Post a sign on your property (by the front door, most likely) saying, in essence, that leaving any un-requested non-governmental (like tax notices, town hall meetings, and other municipal notices) material is assumed to be trash and will be billed $500 (or some other absurd amount just under the small-claims cap) per item. Then make sure you have a camera recording that space with the sign in frame. When the people come to drop off the phone books, send the company a bill for "disposal services." When they refuse to pay, explain that you have video evidence and will continue to pursue the matter now and for each future instance.

      This will either make the company spend time and resources dealing with your case in small claims court or they'll skip it entirely giving you a default judgement. Bonus points if you live in a jurisdiction where formal representation is prohibited for both parties (they can't send a high-priced lawyer nor are you allowed to hire one of your own) so a company executive has to make the trip to court.

      The point is to make yourself so much of a pain in the ass to them that they stop delivery to you altogether all while making a little money from turning a pain in the ass to you into a pain in the ass to them. If enough people do this, they'll eventually do something about it. Not sure WHAT that might be, but my hope is a full-on opt-in system or, at least, an opt-out without all the personally-identifiable information.

      Note that I'm not a lawyer nor have I had to resort to this sort of action.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    10. Re:File a police complaint for littering by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that this was a case of the city offering an opt out for the phonebooks. It's not a legitimate 1st amendment issue, there is no right to an audience anywhere in the 1st amendment. Now, had the city made it opt in, that likely would have been different, but the courts seriously fucked up the ruling by suggesting that the people don't have a right to say no to the deliveries through the city's system.

      The city wasn't making demands on what the books could contain or preventing them from reaching people that wanted copies, the city was just running an opt out list. The reality is that most people don't use the phonebooks anyways and most of them wind up being used as booster seats or tossed in the recycle bin immediately. I can't recall the last time I looked up a number in the phonebook due to the books not being any more up to date as online listings and less convenient to search.

      The courts though decided to find in favor of corporate interests again without any plausible justification for doing so.

    11. Re:File a police complaint for littering by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not-for Profit Organization idea

      Yellow Page Removal and Protest
      Don't want the yellow pages? Don't want to be put on a mass marketing mailing list because they want to make a profit from you regardless of not providing a service to you (by the way, that's called extortion)?

      We'll take the phone books off you hands. We request a donation of $0.50 to $1.00, but heck, we'll do it for free...
      We'll use the to inform the phone book companies what we think of their practices...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    12. Re:File a police complaint for littering by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Members of the boards of directors for the Association of Directory Publishers or the Local Search Association clearly love phone books. It's worth looking to see if any are local to you, so you can help them out...

    13. Re:File a police complaint for littering by jon3k · · Score: 1

      It's not littering, people have tried to use that argument before. The best solution is to just cut off the money. Refuse to do business with anyone that advertises in the Yellow Pages.

    14. Re:File a police complaint for littering by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Trespassing, then.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    15. Re:File a police complaint for littering by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

      Straight into the recycle bin if you don't want it. When the landfill operators note that they have truckload after truckload of them, someone will make the phone company change the way they do things.

      I've often thought that junk mailers should be taxed to pay for the cost of disposing of their junk mail. Currently (in the UK) the council tax payer foots the bill.

    16. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Strider- · · Score: 1

      In my apartment, there is a recycling bin right underneath the mail boxes. I check my mail about once a week, in a typical week, 90% goes straight into recycling, 8% is immediately shredded, and the last 2% is actually useful.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    17. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Really? No, not really.

      If you bother the police with bullshit complaints, the police don't respond by going after the organization you are complaining about. Phone books are like littering only insofar as a plane flying 30,000 feet over your house is a violation of your personal airspace.

    18. Re:File a police complaint for littering by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Refuse to do business with anyone that advertises in the Yellow Pages.

      I hope that was a joke and not a desperate grasp for something resembling a "free-market solution" to spam.

    19. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that this was a case of the city offering an opt out for the phonebooks. It's not a legitimate 1st amendment issue, there is no right to an audience anywhere in the 1st amendment. Now, had the city made it opt in, that likely would have been different, but the courts seriously fucked up the ruling by suggesting that the people don't have a right to say no to the deliveries through the city's system.

      The courts decided correctly that this was a violation of the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to censor speech regardless if that is what the citizens want. The 1st amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech. However, you have no right to ask the government to squelch the speech on your behalf. In this particular case, Seattle was using the opt-out website as a way to lower the number of phonebooks that end up filling their landfill.

      Seattle should set up phonebook collection sites around the city and encourage its citizens to discard their phonebooks there. Afterwards, Seattle could bill the phonebook companies for the cost of disposing the phonebooks. This way nobody's first amendment rights are being violated and there is a disincentive for the phonebook companies to deliver phonebooks that nobody wants. Economic forces would come into play and eventually the phonebook companies would only want to deliver phonebooks to people that would most likely use them. The only issue being that an ordinance which gives the city to right to demand reimbursement for disposal will need to be passed and survive the tests by the court.

      A side-effect of the disposal site program would be the ability for the city to proclaim how many phonebooks are collected as unwanted by the recipients. This public campaign, in theory, would lower the value of yellow book advertising.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    20. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trespassing, then.

      You don't own your mailbox in the USA.

    21. Re:File a police complaint for littering by fermion · · Score: 3, Informative
      It is illegal to post signs in public space. This includes things like stapling notices to telephone poles or putting signs with metal stakes on public property(bandit signs). These have prominent phone numbers and the city should be able to simply prosecute the firms advertising using the signs, but for some reason the problem persist and no one is held accountable. Why is this?

      Probably because the firms contract out to independent workers(read transient workers) to place these signs. They probably have written or verbal instructions not to place signs in any public space, which the firms then use to avoid prosecution. The people being paid some fraction of a dollar sign will be liable to the prosecution. But then how do we get them, and how do they pay?

      The yellow pages are certainly the same way. The contractors have to deliver to every house. They are probably spot checked. If I put a sign saying that anything placed on my lawn will be subject to a $500 clean up fee will I be able to collect? Probably not from the yellow pages, even if the small claims court would allow such a thing. No I would have to hire someone to track down the transient worker, maybe put a lein against the truck that was used in the crime, and then what. Not much.

      They way to stop the telephone directory waste is to stop using them. If it was not still a relevant advertising model, then firms would not be paying to advertise in it. Firms must be getting leads from these directories, otherwise why would they pay to advertise. It will be a problem that corrects itself in the next generation.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    22. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity how would they be able to stop delivery to you without your name and address? I would like to know how much information is acceptable for them to collect.

    23. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      It's not littering, people have tried to use that argument before.

      It is littering; the fact that courts have failed to acknowledge that points up the stupidity of the courts, not that unwanted material left on my property is not litter.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    24. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Lucky you, free recycling pickup has stopped in my community.

      The glut of paper waiting for recycling has made the material too cheap to recover expenses and the paper is being stockpiled or shipped overseas. The paper industry probably favor raw wood chips over recycled due to the extra processing that would be required to reach the level of whiteness that their customer demands. When they mention recycling on the package, it mostly refers to pre-consumer recycling (recycling paper scraps created during production).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    25. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Ca the phone book would never fit into the mailboxes. They just leave them on your porch at the front door. I have often wondered about littering and/or trespassing charges.

    26. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trespassing, then.

      You don't own your mailbox in the USA.

      1. They don't put the phone book in your mailbox, they put it on your doorstep.
      2. It is illegal for anyone but the resident or the USPS carrier to open someone's mailbox.

    27. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my apartment complex we don't have recycling anymore, so the bricks of yellow-pages books dropped in each building go straight to the dump.

    28. Re:File a police complaint for littering by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm, yes I do in fact have that right, this is fundamentally no different from other unsolicited commercial messages. I don't recall the judges saying there was anything wrong with the CAN SPAM Act. Which is precisely the same thing.

      The city government just said that you have to obey the wishes of the people on our list to not receive your messages or face a fine. This is not squashing anybody's freedom of speech. The phone book companies still had any number of ways in which to distribute their books, they just couldn't do so to people that were requesting to opt out.

      So, you're saying, that I should have to drive or take the bus to a collection site in order to dispose of the phone book that I didn't want in the first place, because the phonebook companies choose to saddle me with the book I was never consulted on in the first place? That's roughly $20 worth of time and energy right there, even for somebody working for minimum wage taking the bus.

      We have the right to free speech, we don't have the right to an audience. By your logic we could never regulate unsolicited commercial messages because you'd be infringing upon the rights of corporate entities to reach their audience.

    29. Re:File a police complaint for littering by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it would be a good idea to just return it to them. If they have a local office, it would be great if 5000 (or maybe more) people all showed up the day after they were delivered to return them...

      ...all singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant!

    30. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Calydor · · Score: 2

      By your logic the Do Not Call list is unconstitutional. Just to be clear, is that the point you're making?

      In fact if the phone books can't have an opt out list, I suppose the popular No Ads Please stickers so prevalent on mailboxes in my country would be illegal in the US as well.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    31. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the rare occasion I order pizza I like them. There are always a few coupons in there to use. Other than that it doesn't get used much. It's a special need that normally doesn't come up but once in a few years. I never know what that is going to be so I keep 1 around. I don't have a landline but they keep delivering it. So in the end, WooHoo! free pizza coupons!

    32. Re:File a police complaint for littering by xaxa · · Score: 2

      In the UK (again), there's a general opt-out service: http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/ (Mail Preference Service). It works very well, I don't get any junk mail. There's also the telephone preference service, which stops junk phone calls.

      The phone book is very slim anyway (1.5cm?), but I'm not sure where I would go to avoid getting it once per year.

    33. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I save mine until I need to test a bow. Then I shoot them.

    34. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Cederic · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is illegal to post signs in public space

      That'll be why the suggestion was "Post a sign on your property".

    35. Re:File a police complaint for littering by racermd · · Score: 1

      I was suggesting the sign be placed at my own front door, for instance. Or you could do so at your own front door. This isn't a public space we're talking about. It's clearly private property, beyond the reach of the typical easement. Just because you can see it from a public space doesn't mean it's a public space.

      And, besides, at the very least, if they deliver a phone book to your door, that's a non-government entity - public or private - that is at least trespassing. A sign is sufficient for that to be a violation.

      And, besides THAT, if the contractors delivering phone books on behalf of the company, they're representing the company, itself. There's substantial case law on such things (that I won't go digging for because I'm not too proud to admit I'm lazy). Much of that apparently depends on how much of their income is a result of that specific contract work (i.e.: whether or not they have other contracts for other companies, for instance) but, in small claims, you could easily make the case that the contractor represents the company so the company should be on the hook, not the poor shlub that needs a few extra bucks to drop a dead tree at everyone's door in a neighborhood.

      The contractors are probably required by the company to deliver to every house (except the ones on their do-not-deliver-to list). But that's a contractual problem between the contractor and the company. If the contractor breaks a law because the company policy said to do it, that contractor is still breaking a law. And the company that told them to do it is likely in some hot water because the contractor is acting on behalf of the company.

      I'm in my mid-30s and stopped using the phone book(s) for their intended purposes as soon as I got my first DSL connection back in late 90s. I've only ever used them since as weights or stands. The problem should be correcting itself already. It hasn't. And it's getting to the point where if I *don't* want one, I have to tell them more than my address, which should be simple enough. They're trying to turn a negative (for them) into something positive (for them). By collecting personally-identifiable information at the opt-out stage, they're able to use it for their own marketing purposes or sell it to someone else that will.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    36. Re:File a police complaint for littering by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      It IS littering. Just because the courts are too stupid doesn't change the fact that strangers are allowed to dump pounds of paper on my property, legally. There is no other way to describe it.

      --
      Good-bye
    37. Re:File a police complaint for littering by racermd · · Score: 2

      Your address alone should be sufficient. Your name should not be required (nor any other information) since it's the address they're delivering the books to. They don't need to know who lives there (even if they already do) or what their "marketing preferences" are (even if they already do). They can send a bulk flier in the mail once per year to let you know how to get one should you want/need one.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    38. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another example of the absurd techniques used to rationalize these arbitrary made up rules; by trying to shoehorn our problems into constitutional commandments and see them flail about more and more often is exactly what one would expect from such a system. It reminds me of the desperate astronomers who tried to keep the ptolemaic model going by adding more circles within circles. They would make justifications for their system ex post facto to alleviate the faltering correlation between their model and reality.

      What is true in reality is simple: a bunch of people steal money from innocent members of society and a bit of that is used to fund the transportation of(and creation of as well to some degree) some things onto the property of others. This initiates violence against innocent people twice: first in stealing money and second in dumping things without consent of the owner.

      The solution to such a simple problem has no need for all the different legal techniques I've read described by comments above. These actions are wrong and we don't need the excuse of some fucking arbitrary man made mandates to know this. It is clear by simply observing objective universal 'rules' of reality. The initiation of violence is a self contradictory evil action; to say that one should do such things is a self-detonating statement in the same way that 'words convey no meaning' or 'there is no truth' self detonate. Because violent action requires unwilling victims that resist or otherwise do not welcome the force aggressed upon them, to champion violence as a universal moral standard is to say both that one should initiate violence and one should oppose it in the same breath. Such a contradictory moral category cannot be true because there are no contradictions in reality.

      Dependence upon fictional rules of rulers leads to exactly this kind of nonsense we have to deal with today. Until we set aside the make believe, we will not find our problems solved. Instead, we will only find that things are made worse, to the degree our techniques differ from what is true.

    39. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously, IANAL.

      If you have read the decision on the "Do Not Cal" list given by the tenth circuit court, you'd see that the court used a three-prong test to determine constitutionality:

      1) The court found that the do-not-call registry addressed the governmental interests in protecting the privacy of an individual within their homes and from abusive and coercive solicitation.

      2) The list affected the sources of the majority of the consumer complaints that fell within the governmental agency's jurisdiction while allowing calls from political action committees, charitable organizations, etc, (The law targeted a particular type of abuser).

      3) The list didn't restrict more speech than necessary since it was opt-in.

      Since unsolicited phonebooks aren't a threat to ones privacy, coercive and does't immediately initiate a sales transaction between the phonebook distributor and the resident, it doesn't satisfy the first prong of the test.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    40. Re:File a police complaint for littering by JaiWing · · Score: 1

      better, bill each and every advertiser in the phonebook for the cost of disposal, as a community. (need to make the dollar signs add up to something big.)

    41. Re:File a police complaint for littering by klek · · Score: 1

      And remember, we are talking about the YELLOW PAGES here... pure advertising and commercial numbers. Not the classic and --imho-- far more useful WHITE PAGES. They have won the right to ensure a captive audience for advertising. Fuck. Them.

    42. Re:File a police complaint for littering by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.

      Clearly, they cannot - Because phone books do not count as fucking speech.

      Sick of this "corporate speech" BS. We can't have campaign finance reform because CORPORATE SPEECH. Now we can't opt out of phonebooks because CORPORATE SPEECH. But try to protest at the G8 summit, and you'll get to see just how much HUMAN speech matters anymore.

      We need to end the rights of incorporation now. We can come up with a short list of powers granted to companies to facilitate doing business, but when real live natural born humans take a back seat to fictional entities, time to change the laws before things start burning.

    43. Re:File a police complaint for littering by similar_name · · Score: 1

      I agree the courts messed up. After all, wouldn't the same thing apply to the national Do Not Call list.

    44. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      This isn't a public space we're talking about. It's clearly private property, beyond the reach of the typical easement.

      In Canada, it's not. It's considered semi-public. Because it allows access to your front door(or side door, depending on which is your primary entrance), and your front door is considered an 'invitation' to allow access to people to come and visit you. This was upheld by the SCC. Your backdoor/yard, is private.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re:File a police complaint for littering by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      The courts decided correctly

      There's the rub. What makes you think they decided correctly? Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It is supposed to be interpreted reasonably.

      Let's look at the purpose of the constitution:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Which of these purposes does the court's decision serve? I can think of none. If anything, it disrupts the general welfare by polluting people's property with trash. I would say the ruling is unreasonable.

    46. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      The objective of CAN-SPAM and "Do not call" was to address abuses that fell within the FCC's jurisdiction. Since those rules are written in such a way to target only the sources of those abuses and with a clear objective of protecting the recipient from coercion, fraud, or loss of privacy by wire, the courts (so far) has not ruled the laws to be unconstitutional. In each of the court cases, the court found that the rules were targeted and didn't prevent all forms of communication with a consumer.

      Now if yellowbook somehow teleported the phonebooks to your residence using a medium regulated by the FCC in a manner that proved to be an immediate threat to your privacy, then the examples you gave may be relevant.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    47. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They don't put the phone book in your mailbox, they put it on your doorstep.

      Or on your driveway or lawn where you don't see it until the morning dew has ruined it or it's been driven over.

    48. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      So you do not believe they need any verification steps that you aren't opting out for random people?

    49. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like an episode of WKRP or something like that. "Leave all the trash bags on City Hall's steps."

    50. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuck? Next you'll tell me that when I shout "(Democrats|Republicans) suck ass!" in the street at 2AM, punishing me for disorderly conduct is in violation of 1st amendment?

      And that I should voice a complaint about violation of 1st amendment for that restraining order that forbids me to swamp my girlfriend and everyone close to her (Well, she doesn't want to admit she's my girlfriend. Yet.) with love letters showing how I know every move she makes, every bond she breaks and every step she takes?

      Damn, I missed so much.

    51. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Larryish · · Score: 1

      When you say that they "love" the phone books, do you mean "they are quite fond of them" or do you mean "they make sweet love down by the fire"?

      One is sort of odd, the other is quite disturbing.

      I believe that a bit of clarification is in order.

    52. Re:File a police complaint for littering by jon3k · · Score: 1

      There is no other way to describe it.

      Sure there is -- "delivery".

    53. Re:File a police complaint for littering by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is not that the sign you place is illegal, it is that illegal signs are placed without fear of prosecution due to the use of contractors. The point is that contractors, in the real world, protect firms from actionable cause. This is why we still get calls even though we have a DNC list, we have bandit signs everywhere, and oil companies are free to have accidents that kill workers while those deaths are never reported as 'employee fatalities'.

      About a third of the population is over 45. These are people who probably did not have computers in high school, probably did not have internet in college, probably did not have a personal cell phone until at least 30, or home internet for that matter. These are the people who have, on average, at least twice the personal wealth as people who are younger.

      This is the target audience of the yellow pages. People who have funds to pay for services, and will likely look in book instead of craigs list or angies list. People who may go to a store rather than just get stuff shipped from Amazon. Certainly many of these people do use Amazon, and do not use the yellow pages, but even if on 1 in 5 used the yellow pages, that is over 5% of the population. That is a market. It is not the nearly 100% it used to be, but it still is a market

      The problem is correcting itself, at least in civilized urban areas. The telephone books i get delivered, and I am not even sure I had one delivered this year, are about a quarter of the size of the old ones. We no longer have residential books delivered. Another generation and the books will be gone completely. It is just that some areas are more control freaks, and always want other people to change.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    54. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the FCC.

    55. Re:File a police complaint for littering by jon3k · · Score: 1

      It really comes down to the perspective. To you it's trash and littering, to them its a product being delivered.

    56. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      The yellow pages in the Los Angeles area are 4-6" thick. It's a lot of waste.

    57. Re:File a police complaint for littering by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Oh, how about this one. Start a program where every year you find the most prominent ad (presumably the company who paid the MOST) then everyone in town takes their phone book and "delivers" it to the business's parking lot. If the court say it's not littering then we can't get in trouble -- right? Do this for a couple years and I think most people would be scared to death to advertise in the Yellow Pages.

    58. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just mail the phone book back to the company. With no stamps on it. Then they have to pay the postage.

    59. Re:File a police complaint for littering by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Seattle should set up phonebook collection sites around the city and encourage its citizens to discard their phonebooks there.

      Why of course. Instead of just allowing those who have expressed desire in not wasting massive amounts of paper on some ridiculously outdated index they will never need, we should punish them instead, forcing it on their doorstep and demanding they drive their waste-books to a special collection center instead. It's not like their time is valuable or anything.

      Might as well just toss it in the recycling bin.

      While we're at it, every home should be forced to receive a 2000 page printout of the top Wikipedia articles on pop-culture. It'd probably be more useful than anything you'd find on the yellow pages by an order of magnitude.

    60. Re:File a police complaint for littering by luvirini · · Score: 2

      If corporations want the rights, they should also have the responsibilities.

      So if an employee is killed through negligence for example the corporation would have everything they own held (as in all factories stopped from producing and such) for the duration of the prison sentence that a natural person would get for the same thing....

      The same thing for any other crime that a corporation does. If they do not want that then they should not have the rights either.
       

    61. Re:File a police complaint for littering by PRMan · · Score: 1

      If this is the case, then just put up a "No soliciting" sign.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    62. Re:File a police complaint for littering by sjames · · Score: 1

      It stops being 1st amendment pamphleting and starts being littering when they toss it unsolicited into my yard.

    63. Re:File a police complaint for littering by PRMan · · Score: 1

      But if YOU do it, it will be littering for sure. You are forgetting about high court vs. low court.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    64. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Golddess · · Score: 1

      The government has no power to restrict the distribution of racist pamphlets, or for that matter, phone books, just because you don't like them.

      And I'm fine with that. But what does that have to do with making it illegal to litter on someone else's property? You're not gonna try and claim that laws against trespassing should be repealed because they "restrict distribution" too, are you?

      Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.

      One man's trash is another man's speech (and vice versa). You call the phone book speech, and claim that that means it is ok to toss phone books in people's driveways against their wishes. Another person calls it trash, and calls that practice littering. So which interpretation is correct? Well, you know that old saying "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? If you want to try and hand me something on a street corner, that's fine. If you want to knock on my door and try and hand me something when I answer, that... is probably also fine. But if you are leaving stuff on my property against my wishes? No. Just no.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    65. Re:File a police complaint for littering by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. The employer is responsable for the actions of the employee. That's why you can't hire someone to hire a hitman.

      They get away with it because no public official shows interest in fixing the problem.

    66. Re:File a police complaint for littering by chihowa · · Score: 1

      It is just that some areas are more control freaks, and always want other people to change.

      You're talking about the phone book company being control freaks, right? The city was just trying to provide a way for the people who don't use the phone books to stop receiving them. I'm failing to see how the city, or the people who want less garbage delivered to their house, is being unreasonable here.

      Nobody was trying to deprive the old folks of their precious yellow pages.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    67. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They have a right to deliver it to your door step, and you have a right to deliver it to there door step.
      So get people to either take the phone book to employees houses, or put them in front of their business door.
      preferably many at once.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    68. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, the walk way to your house can be used by lawful people to approach your house.
      You could use a gate and secure it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    69. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. Just like pamphlets. This has been ruled one ages ago.

      " But try to protest at the G8 summit, "
      completely different. It's not right, but different.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    70. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Find who was negligent, or put the CEO in jail.

      OR more practically, give then a tax hit equal to 1 % per year a person would go to jail.
      Or freeze trading on the company for 1 week per year.

      There are lots of punishments that would be actual punishment for corporations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    71. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue they wouldn't apply to free speech issues. This is a free speech issue, that will trump all your little attempts at loopholes, as it should.

      Of course, you could just opt out. Yeah, you got to give them information..but how would they stop if they didn't know who and where to stop delivering it to?

      It's insane that the complaint is you need to tell them who to stop delivering to.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    72. Re:File a police complaint for littering by geekoid · · Score: 1

      recycle is an ugly nasty business.
      Think about what the issue here is:
      An organization that has your address and name wants your address and name so they can stop delivering it to you.

      OMG!!! ALERT THE PRIVACY POLICE!

      hmm I'm also going to post this on top.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    73. Re:File a police complaint for littering by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe the company producing the phone book should also be responsible to pay the recycling cost?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    74. Re:File a police complaint for littering by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      In Canada, it's not. It's considered semi-public. Because it allows access to your front door(or side door, depending on which is your primary entrance), and your front door is considered an 'invitation' to allow access to people to come and visit you. This was upheld by the SCC. Your backdoor/yard, is private.

      Just curious, how does this work if your backdoor is your primary entrance?

      For that matter, how does it work if the door in the garage is your primary entrance? Does that imply that strangers are allowed to open your garage door to reach your "primary entrance"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    75. Re:File a police complaint for littering by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Lucky you, free recycling pickup has stopped in my community.

      Well, and that's why you have a trash can. I stopped using a recycle bin as soon as the Parish decided that they should charge extra for the privilege of recycling, so it all goes in the trash bin now.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    76. Re:File a police complaint for littering by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The yellow pages in the Los Angeles area are 4-6" thick. It's a lot of waste.

      I live in London. I think they were that thick 10 years ago, but the companies have split the city up into at least 10 small books.

      I've used it once in the last 5 years or so.

    77. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seattle should set up phonebook collection sites around the city and encourage its citizens to discard their phonebooks there."

      Can I opt in to having my phonebook delivered directly to the collection site?

    78. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mean to offend, but this matters why?

      The ruling, actions, and entire discussion are based around the USA.
      Not Canada.

    79. Re:File a police complaint for littering by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Two can play this game. If it were my neighbourhood I'd organise a truck to drive around and pick up all the phone books and dump them all at the phone company's head office, or better yet the CEO's house. Rinse and repeat until they get the message.

    80. Re:File a police complaint for littering by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Trespassing, then.

      You don't own your mailbox in the USA.

      Phone books aren't delivered by the post office (at least not where I'm from - it's some mexican with a truck full of the useless things).
      Only a mail carrier and the residents of the corresponding address are allowed to put items into or take items out of a mail box.

    81. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case just use the trash (unless you have to pay for that too in your community - then I would suggest moving).

      Thanks to containers, ads, junk mail and newspapers my recycling bag fills faster than my household trash bag does, and I'm not the only one. Judging by the trash can / recycle bin ratio on the street on trash day, If they were to stop free recycling in my area it would mean a hell of a lot of additional landfill space...

      Posting AC to preserve moderation.

    82. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL but most /.ers are too young to really understand what that means.

    83. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is illegal to post signs in public space

      That'll be why the suggestion was "Post a sign on your property".

      Found something you thought you could argue about and stopped reading right there did you?

    84. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You don't own your mailbox in the USA.

      Neither do they. Unless they mail it to you through the USPS, inserting into your mailbox would be a criminal offense.

    85. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got stuff like that too in the US. It's called curtilage. However, I believe that if you post "no trespass" signs around the perimeter of your front yard, then it would still be trespassing to go past them. "No trespass," "posted", or other signage is essentially equivalent to a fence.

    86. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mysidia · · Score: 2

      The courts decided correctly that this was a violation of the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to censor speech regardless if that is what the citizens want.

      The court decided incorrectly. The government is allowed to prevent certain forms of speech, regardless of its content.

      For example, I have a right to be secure in my property.

      You can have your free speech on your own property, or on public property in permitted ways, but the moment you step on my property, the actions you may take without my approval are subject government regulations.

      For example, you don't have a right to come erect a 5 foot sign on my lawn, against a candidate that I am not in favor of. Why? Because it's an infringement of my free speech rights and my property rights.

      On my private property, I have a right to not have your free speech, and I have a right to shut your free speech out. And, I have a right to have my government assist me in doing so, when I wish it to.

    87. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Clearly, they cannot - Because phone books do not count as fucking speech.

      It doesn't even matter if they do. There are plenty of infringements that count as "speech", but are not constitutionally protected. For example; violence is a form of speech.

      Chopping down a tree in someone's front yard and painting a smiley face on it (by an anti-environmentalist group) would be a form of speech.

      Still very illegal.

      Just like throwing random crap, or books on someone's front lawn is.

      It doesn't matter whether that crap is the phone book, an almanac, or a religious book.

      The issue is not the content of the thing thrown; it's the depositing it without the approval of the property owner, or the agreement in advance of the property owner to receive it.

      Knocking on your door, and offering the person the book in person, EXCLUSIVELY handing it to a person, and not leaving it on the ground somewhere, or on furniture = Annoying, but OK.

      Chunking it on the doorstep/porch/drive/yard/walkway, and driving off, without any acceptance, or opportunity to refuse = NOT OK.

      The content of the speech is irrelevent, because it's not the actual content of the book at issue.

    88. Re:File a police complaint for littering by mysidia · · Score: 1

      will I be able to collect? Probably not from the yellow pages, even if the small claims court would allow such a thing. No I would have to hire someone to track down the transient worker,

      Probably you get to collect. There is an argument to be made, that the company is liable for their contractor's behavior, because they knew or had a duty to monitor them, and it will be your right to recover from the phone book company, and the phone book company's right to recover from their contractor.

    89. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Just curious, how does this work if your backdoor is your primary entrance?

      For that matter, how does it work if the door in the garage is your primary entrance? Does that imply that strangers are allowed to open your garage door to reach your "primary entrance"?

      Then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if there's a privacy fence in your backyard, and technically people are allowed to enter directly through the most direct means to contact you. If not then the pathway directly leading to the doorway(not leading off, even if connected) is only considered semi-public, and the rest of the backyard is considered private. As for the garage door is considered your primary entrance, and is treated as a door, not the door inside the garage. The garage itself if attached to the home, is considered a part of the dwelling house unless it's part of a warrant search, then you need two separate warrants(one for the dwelling house, and another for the garage).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    90. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every City already has such collection sites, generally in convenient and multiple locations. Just use the yellow pages conveniently provided and find the very first listing with an address convenient to your activities. Then, going about your daily routine, stop and drop off the offending documents at the front door of said establishment. If everyone who hates getting this trash on their doorstep started doing this, pretty soon no one would be willing to pay to be in the Yellow Pages, and the printer goes out of business.

      Personally, I look for the first large advertisement, so I know it is a business that has paid extra to physically SPAM me, and I try to drop it off with a manager while letting him know how much I dislike his promotion of sending me trash and how it means I will not only never be a customer, but I will actively tell me friends and family to avoid his business as well.

      I don't know how much good it is doing, but it makes me feel better, and I know it has made an impression on the managers I've talked to. I still get the damned books, though.

    91. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of burning... why not kill two birds with one 'stone'? Return your phonebooks to those that are spamming them. Just make sure the phonebook is on fire, first.

    92. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      " build a giant statue to show just how much waste is being generated."

      Corporations care about the environment about as much as they care about people. But sending them all back to their offices will hurt them a lot more since it's gonna hit their wallet

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    93. Re:File a police complaint for littering by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech.

      Do you think I have a right to ignore the speech?
      Do I have a right to tell the speaker, please don't enter my property and leave your trash?
      Do I have a right to tell a third party to ask the speaker to not enter my property and leave their trash?
      Now, could that third party be the city?
      I don't see how the city is censoring anyone. They are just saying, "This person requested you not deliver your trash to their address"

    94. Re:File a police complaint for littering by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Tossing it in the recycle/trash bin is less annoying and costs them more money, so I promote that option, since they want to be bastards about it.

      I think the right thing to do, is round up all your neighbors. Get a bunch of phone books. Deliver them right in front of the front door of the phone company. It seems the court is saying that is ok

    95. Re:File a police complaint for littering by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      He wasn't referring to the sign of the OP. He was posting about an alternative situation that is illegal but no one is ever prosecuted. So saying "I'll fine you" won't really do a lot of good.

    96. Re:File a police complaint for littering by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Meh. Just start taxing corporate income at the same rate we tax people. That's going to get a lot more attention right away.

    97. Re:File a police complaint for littering by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's left on my property, so I fail to see why their opinion on what it is has any relevance whatsoever.

    98. Re:File a police complaint for littering by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      An RPG fired at the window "delivers" a pound of explosives to the recipient, as well. Would you be willing to argue that in court?

    99. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.

      Really now? How is this considered free speech? The phone book is not a weekly news letter or even a pamphlet.

      They have shrink down the phone book considerable, it is not as thick as it once was. The citizens should have the choice to opt out of receiving it. They could also take it and throw it in the recycle bin, or bundle it with paper to be recycled. That is called freedom of choice, the judge said I fail to understand this basic concept. Not only that but they demand personal information if you call them directly to tell them you want to opt out? Who the hell allowed this type of blackmail?

    100. Re:File a police complaint for littering by cygnwolf · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as the courts told Seattle that they couldn't forbid the delivery, he is offering an alternative. Maybe not ideal but at least it is another avenue of attack.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    101. Re:File a police complaint for littering by akinliat · · Score: 1

      If they have a local office, it would be great if 5000 (or maybe more) people all showed up the day after they were delivered to return them.

      Agreed. But there's no reason for it to stop there.

      If everyone who receives one of these (and doesn't want one) makes that little extra effort to return to sender, it would become a persistent problem, much like landfills, junk mail, and waste paper are for citizens and government. Having to deal with one bad day might get their attention. Having to deal with the problem, day in and day out, every day is going to motivate them to find a solution.

    102. Re:File a police complaint for littering by racermd · · Score: 1

      This isn't a question of not getting a regularly-scheduled life-saving $thing. This is a phone book. If someone gets opted-out by a 3rd party and they still want to get a phone book, they should get an annual mailer (that everyone gets) telling them how to get one.

      Tell me the publishers of the phone books wouldn't be happy to send one from their stockpile anytime someone wanted one.

      They don't need anything more than an address to NOT deliver to.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    103. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The courts decided correctly that this was a violation of the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to censor speech regardless if that is what the citizens want. The 1st amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech. However, you have no right to ask the government to squelch the speech on your behalf. In this particular case, Seattle was using the opt-out website as a way to lower the number of phonebooks that end up filling their landfill.

      Your a special kind of ... person aren't you? The government is not censoring speech, they are simply asking a company not to deliver unwanted trash to individuals asking not to receive it. If it was a city-wide ban then the phone company would have a legitimate issue. Someone can pull up a soapbox on a corner and spew all the hate that they want. That is protected speech. But there certainly is no law that requires I stop and listen to them. They have NO RIGHT to a captive audience, *I* have the right to keep on walking.

      A side-effect of the disposal site program would be the ability for the city to proclaim how many phonebooks are collected as unwanted by the recipients. This public campaign, in theory, would lower the value of yellow book advertising.

      This already exists, it is the number of people that signed up and opted-out.

    104. Re:File a police complaint for littering by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      A gate made of phone books, perhaps?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    105. Re:File a police complaint for littering by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And neither does this. They're using the public right of way as well as my private walkway in order to do it. And they have other options available to them in order to distribute their books. The objective here is ultimately fraudulent, they don't want the advertisers to know just how poorly read the books are, using circulation numbers that are artificially enlarged to make it appear like the books are being used.

    106. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have the right to free speech, we don't have the right to an audience. By your logic we could never regulate unsolicited commercial messages because you'd be infringing upon the rights of corporate entities to reach their audience."

      This is exactly what the advertising are trying to set the stage for. They have tried (in some cases succeeded) to make video recording systems that automatically skip commercials illegal. They are likely trying to make the "mute" button on your remote a felony offense and they believe you are required to accept a phone book which is 70% advertizing because "that is their business model". Like every other dying model they are looking for government backing to force you to make them money.

      Organize a grass roots effort to get everyone in your town who doesn't want a phone book to drop the one left at their at their house on the steps of the phone companies office on the same day. That should send a message to the people responsible for the trash a message.

      Tell the companies you do business with that you do not use their ads in the yellow pages. If enough people tell enough companies then the will no longer purchase ads. Sooner or later the yellow pages will go the way of the dodo.

      Quit whining on Slashdot and do something to help yourself. Same for all the other crap you all complain about in ad nausium.

    107. Re:File a police complaint for littering by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't have a right to forbid people from tossing crap on my property? If I tell them I don't want it and they should not drop it there, they are trespassing.

      This is equivalent to saying that someone is allowed to sit in my living room and yell about their political views, and I can't tell them to leave, because their speech is protected. The 1st amendment does not provide a defense for trespass.

    108. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Golddess · · Score: 1

      This is a free speech issue, that will trump all your little attempts at loopholes, as it should.

      I don't blame you for accusing me of attempting to suppress free speech. After all, you don't know me. But if you did, you'd know that I am actually a huge supporter of free speech. But this, I just don't follow what makes it a free speech issue. I'm not going after you because of your message, I'm going after you because you are littering on my property.

      Try and hand me a pamphlet on the street corner, at the mall, at the pub, fine.

      Knock on my door and try and hand me a pamphlet.. at present seems perfectly fine, but I suppose I could be swayed with a good argument, assuming one exists.

      But drop something on my property and then leave? How is that not littering, regardless of what it is that is being dropped on my property?

      It's insane that the complaint is you need to tell them who to stop delivering to.

      I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting on the idea that littering on my property somehow counts as a "free speech" issue.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    109. Re:File a police complaint for littering by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      To you it's trash and littering, to them its a product being delivered.

      And since it's my property, my perspective on the issue dominates. Otherwise it would be legal and legitimate for me to leave bags of dog crap on your front lawn -- they're free samples for my new manure delivery service.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    110. Re:File a police complaint for littering by jon3k · · Score: 1

      You should try that, and then use the Yellowpages delivery as a precedent. Maybe we can convince the courts to reconsider their position.

  2. Hire a truck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... collect all the unwanted phone books, and dump them all on the front porch of Yellow Pages publishers executives.

    I generally support free speech, but only if it includes the right to plug your ears and precludes the right to force people to listen.

    1. Re:Hire a truck.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Make giant paper mache/spit wads and launch them at the corporate building with a trebuchet. Figure out where the executive suite is and call that the bullseye.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Hire a truck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If giving out the phone books is protected free speech, then so is returning them, so I kind of hope someone takes your idea seriously and actually does that to make the point.

    3. Re:Hire a truck.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Why inconvenience the poor bastards on the cleaning crew for whatever office space they rent?

      Surely home delivery of unwanted phone books, being protected speech and all, should be acceptable for the corporate officers responsible?

    4. Re:Hire a truck.. by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      your idea is better than mine. Though I'd drench them first, so that they can't try to reuse them.

      in what you say? That's up to the individual, but I live not far from a rather foul smelling river that wouldn't be traceable back to me...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Hire a truck.. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And at this point, you can be fined for littering. The difference between free speech and littering here is how the distributor views the item left behind. Gathering them all and dumping them seems less like speech and more like dumping trash. What you could do is leave a YP once a day. Of course good luck getting past their gates in the first place.

    6. Re:Hire a truck.. by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      I disagree. Once it's been established that leaving phone books at a property constitutes speech, then I would argue that protest speech (dumping them all at once) is more protection worthy than commercial speech (leaving one for use).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:Hire a truck.. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the opposite. There is no way that a sane person could think that spending more time, more effort and more money to put specifically put the books back on the producer's doorstep is anything other than someone trying to send a message. A.K.A Speech.

    8. Re:Hire a truck.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Make giant paper mache/spit wads

      Speaking of which ... we're another household that completely ignores the things except as a source of material to light the charcoal chimney starter we occasionally use, or for zombie apocalypse toilet paper.

      But a few months back, we walked outside and found a newly delivered YP book half out of its plastic bag in front of our house. It was in the gutter, and water was running into it, making something that's almost 100% useless under normal circumstances completely useless. So I looked on the back of the thing, and there was a web site mentioned, encouraging feedback about the book and their service. Great! I wrote a short missive about the wastefulness of the books in general, and about how especially wasteful it was to have their delivery morons turn their barely-seen advertising into paper mache trash because they couldn't be bothered to keep the books out of running water while "delivering" them.

      The next day, every house on our street had yet another YP book thrown into their front yards. It was so awful we laughed. And, of course, nobody ever looked at them because it was also recycle pickup day, and every bin on the block had a brand new YP book featured as the last item in. What a waste, times two.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Hire a truck.. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's litter collection, cleaning up the neighbourhood and returning lost property.

      Force-feeding them to the publishers may be actionable, but merely returning them is surely a public service.

    10. Re:Hire a truck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I dont know, I recon it would send a clear message, and sending a clear message is what communication, aka speech, is all about, know isn't it?

  3. corporations are not people by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:corporations are not people by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that this is off topic, why not just vote for the politician based on the politician him/herself?

      Lobbyists can't vote. Corporations can't vote. You can.

      Besides, if that movetoamend organization got their way, wouldn't they be forbidden from doing exactly what they are trying to do now? Even if they provide special protections for themselves or for labor unions, then you can bet your ass that lobbyists will reorganize themselves in the same way, making the entire effort wasted. I also like that they want to forbid anonymous donations. Say for example you lived in a conservative state and you donated money to support gay marriage, but you didn't want anybody else to know. Is that cowardly? Maybe. But you should be free to stand up for your principles in whatever way you choose.

      All too often I hear from people who vote without even knowing anything about what exactly it is that they are voting for. They don't know who their congressman is, they don't know who their governor is, they don't know who their senators are. Yet they voted for them anyways. Before they even got the ballot, they didn't even know their name, they just voted for the letter next to it. I've also heard "I'm voting for X because my friends are" and chances are you've heard the same thing.

      The problem isn't the money. The problem is the voters.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:corporations are not people by Stormin · · Score: 1

      I've also heard "I'm voting for X because my friends are" and chances are you've heard the same thing.

      The problem isn't the money. The problem is the voters.

      I've actually heard the opposite: A friend of mine who didn't know much about politics and had recently become a naturalized US Citizen basically said that he was voting for $X in the presidential race because a mutual friend of our was voting for $Y and he realized that their politics were so different that for him, $X must be the right vote.

    3. Re:corporations are not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also heard "I'm voting for X because my friends are" and chances are you've heard the same thing.

      I know it's cool to beat up on the ignorant average voter, but I've never heard anything remotely like this, and I live in an overwhelmingly red state.

    4. Re:corporations are not people by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I initially read "voting for $X" as "being given X dollars to vote" rather than as a Perl variable...

    5. Re:corporations are not people by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Right, and that's what annoys me about this whole thing. People vote for their candidates based on the most absurd reasons.

      I think the problem is all of the "get out the vote" campaigns. People voting on issues they don't understand is more damaging than not voting at all.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:corporations are not people by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to beat up on the voter. What I'm trying to do is to encourage people to think before they vote, or just not vote at all. As I said earlier, voting on an issue you don't understand is more damaging than not voting at all. I know, this is an unpopular thing to say (especially the way Sean Penn and the rest of Hollywood publicly lambasted Stone and Parker when they said this) because everybody is constantly going around espousing the virtues of voting - even if that means voting on something that you never took the time to educate yourself about.

      Last election cycle, I had some representative of a congressional candidate call me and ask me to vote for their guy, and in explaining why, he basically spoke up about a couple of problems that I personally wanted to see solved, saying the candidate would solve it.

      So I asked what his guy would do to solve these problem...and...he didn't really know. Imagine that, somebody working on his campaign doesn't actually know what he intends to do to solve said problems. I hope the guy will one day ask the same question himself.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    7. Re:corporations are not people by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      So did I and, sadly, it made sense.

      "I'm contributing $Y to the political party I support."

      "Oh yeah? Well, I support the opposite political party so I'm going to contribute $X where X > Y!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:corporations are not people by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, free speech requires communication between consenting parties. Spam is not free speech.

    9. Re:corporations are not people by egamma · · Score: 2

      Corporations are not people, and do not get natural rights such as the right to free speech.

      A corporation is nothing more than an organized group of people. Since individuals have a right to free speech, then you can't remove their right to free speech simply because they want to use a different name (the corporate name) instead of their own.

    10. Re:corporations are not people by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      It's very possible that the guy who called you wasn't a part of the campaign but an employee at a rented call center.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    11. Re:corporations are not people by msauve · · Score: 1

      I agree that people can group together, and enjoy free speech rights as a group. I disagree, however, that corporations should have those rights.

      A corporation is an artificial, legal construct. It is much more than "an organized group of people," as you claim. It has special legal status, and provides advantages to the owners, such as limiting liability and special tax treatment. Since it's an artificial construct, the same law which allows corporations to be formed has every right to limit the uses to which they can be put, and that includes speech.

      That in no way limits the ability of people to group together for free speech, it just means you can't have your cake, and eat it too, by doing so as part of a corporation. If you want the special tax and liability treatment offered by incorporation, there's a cost which comes with that.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:corporations are not people by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I don't get to vote on the issues most of the time. I get to vote on the people who get to vote on the issues. Actually, given the gerrymandering in my area, I get to vote for or against the winner, where the winner has been predetermined prior to the vote, and then he gets to vote on the issues.

      For the rare times that I get to vote directly on the issues (usually local bond packages), I research each one before voting to make sure I agree it's a good use of my tax dollars.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    13. Re:corporations are not people by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      How is this off-topic? I disagree with the ruling, and point to a link that explains my reasoning in a much better way than I could.

      Sounds pretty on-topic, to me.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:corporations are not people by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      But as a corporation, they enjoy limited liability from the consequences of their actions and speech. Moreover, they enjoy tax protections not available to non-corporate entities.

      Maybe you can't remove their right to free speech just because they want to use a different name, but you can remove their special legal protections and tax status. Then, for organizations that voluntarily choose to incorporate for legal protections and favorable tax status, they can be asked to voluntarily relinquish some legal speech rights in exchange for these special benefits. And, if they choose to regain their speech rights, their special benefits can be taken away.

      There's a difference between a group of people who have formed together to amplify their speech, and a group of people who have formed together to limit risk and increase profit. The former is protected by the Constitution. The latter could be eliminated by legislative action tomorrow with no Constitutional challenge.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    15. Re:corporations are not people by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      The Citizens United case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of corporate personhood. The fundamental issue is the power of the federal government to restrict speech by a group of people as opposed to an individual. Conflating the two is completely disingenuous. The laws and court decisions affirming the "corporate person" idea date back to the late 1800s!

      Our Right to free speech isn't a gift that was granted to people by the government. It is instead, a strict limit on government power.

      "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

      NO LAW! The federal government has NO POWER to abridge the freedom of speech in any way, shape or form!

      Telling a group of people that they can't run political ads on TV (the crux of Citizens United v. FEC) is a blatant and obvious violation of this prohibition and it was rightly struck down.

    16. Re:corporations are not people by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      These amendments are based on the leftist cry that "corporations aren't people," but the Supreme Court has never said that they are. "Corporate personhood" is a legal fiction that allows natural people to sue and to be sued, to own and transfer property, and to carry on their affairs as a group. Corporations have rights because the people who own them have rights.

      As Chief Justice John Marshall explained nearly 200 years ago in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, corporations allow "a perpetual succession of many persons . . . to manage [their] affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand." The legal concept of a corporate "person" has been with the United States since its founding, recognized in literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions.

      If Move to Amend got its way, police could search businesses, unions, clubs and nonprofits at will, without a warrant. The state could seize business property without due process or just compensation, leaving pension funds and individual shareholders holding worthless stock. Partnerships and corporations would have no legal rights in court. Incorporated churches would have no right of worship.

      The absurdity should be obvious. Yet city councils around the country, including New York and Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for such an amendment.

      -- Bradley A Smith.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    17. Re:corporations are not people by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is why the two major parties are so hip on it. The people who don't know the issues will vote for who they hear the most. By getting people to vote who wouldn't normally both, the status quo of whoever spends the most money wins gets perpetuated.

    18. Re:corporations are not people by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      A corporation is nothing more than an organized group of people.

      Nope. A corporation is an artificial immortal person created by state fiat, and capable of doing nothing other than seeking profit (or, for non-profits, whatever other purpose may be specified in its charter). The so-called "owners" of a corporation have natural rights; the corporation does not.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    19. Re:corporations are not people by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The fundamental issue is the power of the federal government to restrict speech by a group of people as opposed to an individual. Conflating the two is completely disingenuous.

      What's completely disingenuous is conflating a mere group of people with a corporation -- a legal entity, an immortal unnatural person created by state fiat..

      The laws and court decisions affirming the "corporate person" idea date back to the late 1800s!

      Actually, "corporate personhood" was introduced illegitimately by a court reporter.

      Our Right to free speech isn't a gift that was granted to people by the government. It is instead, a strict limit on government power.

      The government has broad powers to regulate commerce; advertizing time bough by a for-profit corporation is nothing more or less than commerce.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:corporations are not people by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      You know what I think would be a great idea, is if individual states would remove the party affiliations from the ballot. Just list the name of the candidate. Don't even list the office they are running for, just put a list of candidates in a given section in a randomized order and say that they are all running for the same office. If you knew enough about the candidate you were voting for, and even the other players in that office and their issues, then you'd already know all of that information. So why is it needed on the ballot?

      I bet you that you'd get a lot of "I don't know who the hell these people even are, and I might vote for the wrong one, so I'll just leave this section blank." Perfect.

      It would be interesting if somebody did an empirical experiment on this.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    21. Re:corporations are not people by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Not if they want to finance that speech from corporate money. These loopholes are already closed. The free speech equivalent for organizations is called the freedom of press, but it's somewhat more restrictive.

    22. Re:corporations are not people by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Property rights do not apply exclusively to people. Is a trust a person? Your arguments are facetious and intended to mislead. The rights you say will be missing are afforded to the people in the corporation, not the corporate entity.

    23. Re:corporations are not people by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      The rights you say will be missing are afforded to the people in the corporation, not the corporate entity.

      Congratulations. You have just accurately described the theory behind the current regime with the legal fiction.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    24. Re:corporations are not people by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The state DOES regularly seize property, ignores due process, lets corporation out of their pension obligations. It happens EVERY DAY. Terrible argument. A person is a person, a corporation is a legal construct that exists SOLELY at the goodwill of the people. We tell people EVERY DAY what they can and cant sell, where, for how much, it goes on and on, so the idea that we cant tell a collection of people to shut up and only speak with their own voice is obvious and natural.

      --
      Good-bye
    25. Re:corporations are not people by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      So did I and, sadly, it made sense.

      "I'm contributing $Y to the political party I support."

      "Oh yeah? Well, I support the opposite political party so I'm going to contribute $X where X > Y!"

      What about those of us that really want to make a difference but don't have much X to "direct"?

    26. Re:corporations are not people by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1
      I had an opportunity to work with the Libertarians in Oregon, and I must say that I was thoroughly unimpressed.

      While working with one of the actual candidates (to see if I actually *wanted* to work with them), I asked quite a few questions about his views and perspectives. Below is a bullshit conversation that illustrates why I exited my brief foray into politics:

      Me: So what are you going to do to help the community?
      Him: Well, what would you like me to do?
      Me: Our public education is abysmal - what do you plan to do to fix it?
      Him: You know the incumbent? Yeah, I disagree with her.
      Me: So what will you do to fix it?
      Him: What would you like me to do?
      Me: Ok, this isn't working. What do you plan on doing to reduce waste in our community? Him: What do *you* think needs to be done to reduce waste? *sigh*

      The fundamental problem, I think, is that the people drawn to politics are the same people that thought being popular was important in high school. They have no talent or ability, so can't earn their ego the honest way...instead they just learn to cater to whomever they happen to be speaking to at the time. These are the assholes running the country, and the only way "in" is to be as disingenuous as they are - which is a problem for anyone with a sense of morality and ethics.

      Of course I don't have a solution, this is /.

    27. Re:corporations are not people by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      So did I and, sadly, it made sense.

      "I'm contributing $Y to the political party I support."

      "Oh yeah? Well, I support the opposite political party so I'm going to contribute $X where X > Y!"

      What about those of us that really want to make a difference but don't have much X to "direct"?

      You either get the support of those who have more "speech" money (individually or in aggregate), or you get ignored.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    28. Re:corporations are not people by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if that would solve the "I voted for the name I recognize". A.K.A. Whoever spends the most money on advertising, but I agree that it would be an interesting experiment, and I am not convinced it would be worse than what we have now.

    29. Re:corporations are not people by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about this is that if a study did show the intended result, you wouldn't need to have politicians vote on this issue. Since ballots are done by the state, it can be voted in by means of referendum, which most states have a process for.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    30. Re:corporations are not people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a large corporation (and own stock in it as well) but in no way does the corporation speak for me. In the past the corporation has taken positions that I disagree with and it offends me to think that just because I work for them that I necessarily agree with everything they do. I lost none of my free speech rights as an individual when I went to work for them so why should my free speech rights be expanded because I do work for them?

    31. Re:corporations are not people by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I back move to amend. Corporations are not people and money is not speech. We need reform.

    32. Re:corporations are not people by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The first amendment specifically refers to "the press" which usually is a corporation. Or are you saying newspapers shouldn't have the freedom of speech? Cause you know, they are a corporation?

    33. Re:corporations are not people by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      No. No it doesn't. It only takes ONE person to speak. And that person doesn't have to be communicating to a consenting party. In fact when the person is communicating to a non consenting party is really the speech that is being protected. Or do you think the only speech that is protected is when you "preach to the choir?"
      I'm failing to see how spam is not free speech? Just because you don't like it?
      Of course just because it is free speech doesn't mean I have the right to use that delivery system.

    34. Re:corporations are not people by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Individuals making up the corporations have the right to free speech as individuals, and no-one is taking that right away from them. A corporation is more than a mere aggregation of individuals, however. It is a legal entity that, among other things, provides a shield from liability in many cases, and it does so by creating a fictitious persona. That is a rather unique privilege, and there is no reason why that privilege should not come with a lot of strings attached.

      Ultimately, the point is this. Corporations are legal fiction, a creation of the state. They do not exist without the state legislating them into existence. As such, their rights and freedoms should be entirely up to the state to define.

    35. Re:corporations are not people by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is no reason why we can't amend the constitution to say that corporations aren't persons (that they aren't is obvious to anyone with even a modicum common sense - the people constituting them are persons, and have all constitutional rights, but corporation is more than the people that make it in the eyes of the law), and expand constitutional amendments that we deem important to protect for corporations at the same time, by changing "people" to "people and corporations" - but only where it makes sense.

    36. Re:corporations are not people by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Communication to a nonconsenting party is called harassment, and in most countries is punishable.

  4. As a european citizen by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

    I find your lack of privacy disturbing.

    1. Re:As a european citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      London

  5. Other uses for phone books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lets get the ball rolling:

    1) foot rest
    2) paper recycling
    3) Camp fire starter ....

    1. Re:Other uses for phone books by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Weapon for clubbing the phone book publishers to death.

    2. Re:Other uses for phone books by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      - drawing an above average length pageflip-cartoon
      - weight for flattening out crumpled pieces of paper

    3. Re:Other uses for phone books by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Backstops for BB gun and air rifle targets. Why should I pay money for those when I get several free ones each year and they stop as many or more shots as the rubber or plastic ones that cost money, especially the large entire metro area ones that come about once a year.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Other uses for phone books by Krojack · · Score: 1, Interesting

      According the paper for my local recycling pick-up, they won't take phone books. Go figure.

    5. Re:Other uses for phone books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tether between a tank and an armored personnel carrier... well, close enough!

    6. Re:Other uses for phone books by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      We used to use the stacks of phone books that would appear periodically at my last dayjob as monitor stands. one or two of them propped the monitor up to eye level. The phone book "fairy" would bring close to a pallet-full of phone books and they'd sit there for months, but for the few "monitor-propping" ones taken, then magically disappear when it became clear they were excess (or the appropriate manager got tired of seeing them sitting there..). At home, we still get them every so often, and they go straight into the trash.. Nobody in my household has used one in years..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    7. Re:Other uses for phone books by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The fibers in paper break down a bit with each recycling cycle(and the color generally drifts a bit, unless you bleach it good and hard, which costs money and isn't great for the fibers or the fishies) since phone books are already printed on total shit-grade paper, and contain a lot of ink, they probably reduce the value of the recycled pulp for any but the most undemanding applications.

      If the ink doesn't have any problematic metals(not always a safe assumption historically, probably better now) pallets of dry phone books are probably worth something as fuel; but that's about it.

    8. Re:Other uses for phone books by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I'm forced to pay for recycling in my area, so they get whatever I decide to put in the thing. Typically that's trash that is too large to fit in my trash can.

    9. Re:Other uses for phone books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you just use a phone book?

    10. Re:Other uses for phone books by Megane · · Score: 1

      Camp toilet paper. Okay, so they're no Charmin, but they ought to be about as good as the Sears catalog was famous for.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:Other uses for phone books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a Zoo here that has 'recycling day' every year, every phonebook gets a free ticket. Couple years ago about 10 of us went that day.

    12. Re:Other uses for phone books by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Vehicular armor. More 'burban than hillbilly, I guess.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. Just lie by Mephistophocles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So just visit their website and lie about everything. Make the information offensive, even, or obviously false (all except the address, I guess, which they have to have). 99% of the mail I get is junk mail anyway, so much so that I rarely look at it and just use automatically it for fire starter, animal bedding, etc.

    Never give up privacy, even under duress. When this kind of thing happens, meet them on a level playing field and corrupt their database with junk info.

    --
    Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    1. Re:Just lie by conspirator23 · · Score: 2

      So just visit their website and lie about everything. Make the information offensive, even, or obviously false (all except the address, I guess, which they have to have).

      Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie agree.

    2. Re:Just lie by goffster · · Score: 1

      But then you probably violate the terms of service of the website, which, in turn,
      makes you a criminal under the computer fraud and abuse act.

    3. Re:Just lie by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If you don't have to have the information correct other than the address, I think it would be possible to build an automated system that would unsubscribe the entire city. Make sure to use a bunch of different IPs, or do it all from your local library or starbucks so they can't differentiate people who really wanted to opt out and those who wanted to opt out but didn't have connection at home, and therefore used a freely available one.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Just lie by istartedi · · Score: 1

      This is why I actually received some junkmail in the late 90s. I used my actual address but my name was "Ihate Webforms". It was a bit too obvious I guess. They purged it fairly quickly.

      There's always the more subtle approach of misspelling your own name, especially when the company claims "we don't sell your information". Then a month later... there it is. The wrong name.

      BTW, I've been on the other end of this as a temp worker. Post-cards filled out by teenagers as pranks actually brightened our day. Sadly, I suspect there are fewer humans in the loop now, and some fairly sophisticated algorithms. I haven't seen too many data entry jobs listed lately. OCR must work well enough now. They can probably kill the misspelling trick by cross-referencing a number of databases.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Just lie by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder, if you pollute their database with intentionally derogatory information, can you sue for defamation? "I keep getting junk mail addressed to Dr. Douchey McTerrorist D.F.A" Or something similar.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    6. Re:Just lie by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      And that's why we use a VPN/some-other-obfuscation-tool. While you're at it, unsubscribe a few (hundred) other random addresses. Impossible to prove it was you, and you have the added bonus of knowing you further hurt their intrusive marketing campaign.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    7. Re:Just lie by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It'd be a bit scorched-earth; but I wonder if their input validation is good enough to keep a, er, 'motivated', individual from seeding the database with strings that could be construed to create a hostile work environment for the junk mailer's employees? 'Offensive' can get 'expensive' in certain workplace contexts...

    8. Re:Just lie by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      ...seeding the database with strings that could be construed to create a hostile work environment...

      That's more or less where I was going with that line of thought - even if not truly a "hostile environment," at least enough that finding people to take the job is pretty difficult - or perhaps enough that the postal service doesn't think it's funny that they're delivering mountains of mail to Mr and Mrs C*********g F*******s at a couple hundred different addresses.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    9. Re:Just lie by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Anything that triggers an official talking-to from the fine people at eeoc.gov

    10. Re:Just lie by cifey · · Score: 1

      I imagine aka seciton of your unfreecreditreport is extensive.

      --
      Hello Cruel World
    11. Re:Just lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA is like a Kafka novel...

    12. Re:Just lie by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So just visit their website and lie about everything. Make the information offensive, even, or obviously false (all except the address, I guess, which they have to have). 99% of the mail I get is junk mail anyway, so much so that I rarely look at it and just use automatically it for fire starter, animal bedding, etc.

      Never give up privacy, even under duress. When this kind of thing happens, meet them on a level playing field and corrupt their database with junk info.

      Technically, you shouldn't lie about your address, otherwise they won't know where they SHOULDN'T deliver a phone book to!

      You're free to lie about everything else, though.

      The PII that seems irrelevant though is name, email address and phone number. Name is completely irrelevant, email might be nice for a confirmation in case you still get them and want to complain. Phone number is irrelevant. (Even worse, they say they need ot call to confirm... I guess it's to keep mass unsubscribe bots away in case there is someone who wants one?).

    13. Re:Just lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opt-out account has me (and the business) under Current Resident. The only unfortunate side effect is If they do sell my info, I won't be able to tell it from the regular junk mail.

    14. Re:Just lie by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      "Violating the terms of service" does not automatically make you a criminal.

    15. Re:Just lie by shentino · · Score: 1

      My name is Bobby"; DROP TABLE NAMES

      (filter filter filter filter filter)

    16. Re:Just lie by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Counts Two through Four allege that Drew violated the CFAA by accessing MySpace servers to obtain information regarding Meier in breach of the MySpace Terms of Service, on September 20, 2006, and October 16, 2006. ....
      This case was heard by a jury, and the jury's verdict was announced on November 26, 2008.[1] The jury was deadlocked on Count One for Conspiracy, but unanimously found Drew not guilty of Counts Two through Four. The jury did, however, find Drew guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA.[4]

      Plus, the guilty verdict was set aside; there is a law which might have made violating the ToS a misdemeanor, except that if interpreted that way it becomes unconstitutionally vague. Even if it were not, "misdemeanor" is not the same as "criminal" (which generally means "felony").

    17. Re:Just lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I logged into their site and opted out of everything.

      I used a temporary email address from: https://www.guerrillamail.com
      a google voice phone number.
      and a fake name.

      We'll see what happens.

    18. Re:Just lie by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      more specifically, from the quoted Wiki Article

      Wu summed up his opinion by stating that allowing a violation of a website's Terms of Service to constitute an intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding authorization would "result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into misdemeanant criminals." For these reasons, Wu granted Drew's motion for acquittal. The Government did not appeal

  7. Seattle now hates Yellow Pages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it cost the yellow pages all future business in Seattle.

    1. Re:Seattle now hates Yellow Pages by hedwards · · Score: 1

      We hated them already, why do you think the opt out was taken up by the city council? I'll give you a hint it's not just because they're green.

  8. So they can just throw trash on my property? by Looker_Device · · Score: 0

    I think I'm going to go over to my asshole next door neighbor's house and dump a bunch of crap on his lawn. It's my free speech right!

    --
    Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    1. Re:So they can just throw trash on my property? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Just be sure to scrawl offensive messages on your trash before dumping it, to ensure that it is clearly identifiable as political speech.

  9. recycle bin by kevinT · · Score: 2

    I just use them to weight down my recycle bin so it doesn't blow away. I will not give out my address to them.

    1. Re:recycle bin by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they already have it...

  10. Community erffort by Dracos · · Score: 2, Informative

    Collect all the unwanted phonebooks and deliver them to the phone company regional office, preferably piled up in front of the door.

    1. Re:Community erffort by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      They get them to. By the pallet. We don't want them any more than the public does. They used to drop them off at everyones desks until it became such a common complaint that the facilities guys receive the pallet, never even unwrap it and push it strait into the dumpster. Phonebooks are created and distributed by a select few companies who lobby local officials to keep decades old laws in place that require phone companies continue to supply them with data and allow the delivery of their "product"

      Remember: Phonebooks don't come from the phone company. They are separate entities. Some are owned by phone companies in part or whole, but rarely is the phone-book you received produced by your actual phone company.

    2. Re:Community erffort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they have to go to the publisher of the phone book, which these days is likely NOT the phone company.

  11. Only really useful for disasters or power outages by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2

    Between my cellphone + computer, if I want to find someone or a business I just run a search.

    But, recently there have been issues where we lost power + internet/data, yet will had access to a phone. In which case, I guess it's useful then. Or as fireplace fuel if there is a true emergency.

    Sure, there are people that NEED them. The elderly person who never learned to use a computer, the poor that don't have internet, the random dude that just doesn't like the internet in general, et.

    But forcing everyone to get it is kind of lame. Then again, it's no big deal to trash it or recycle it.

  12. Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Bomarc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the Federal Court of Appeals says... leaving phone books is protected free speech. Well, exercise the right! Take every phone book you can find, and leave it at the (Federal Court of Appeals) court house - and let THEM deal with the problem.

    1. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or mail them to your elected representative. Ive been mailing my MP my junkmail for free for years now..

    2. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wrong. That would just mean the taxpayers have to pay for removing them. Leave them on the front yards of the judges involved.

    3. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Haven't you been paying attention lately? It's free speech for corporate entities with legal departments, not for you. You'll get arrested and be declaring bankruptcy before your trial even starts. Not to mention kicked around a bit on your way to the holding cell.

    4. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just drop them all off at the phone companies local office. If just a few hundred people did it, it'd be a pain & send a message.

    5. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can simply take unwanted books to the appeals court office which thinks it's okay to deliver these unsightly books.
      http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/information/locations.php

    6. Re:Take .... many phone books to the court house. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      So lets start our own corporation which will collect undesired phone books and deliver them.

  13. Profitability? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Informative

    If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?

    Unless people actually *are* reading it. If so, then how is this a waste?

    And we're not going to run out of trees any faster than we'll run out of potatoes. Trees used for paper are grown in farms, and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.) Paper production isn't the reason for decreasing numbers of trees, and recycling paper is a huge waste of time and resources.

    The only reason there are fewer trees in the world (and not in the US btw, the number of trees we have in the US has been steadily growing for decades now) is because jungle territory is being cut down to make way for real-estate.

    That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:Profitability? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You only get one phone book a year? I usually only get 1 large one a year but then I end up getting 3-4 smaller ones from various companies.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Profitability? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the readers are not the ones paying for it.
      The businesses that advertise are. Often small businesses will advertise hoping for some result and since the cost is so low many such businesses will advertise.

      So then my taxes have to pay to dispose of their waste? Can I mail my trash to you to dispose of?

    3. Re:Profitability? by sribe · · Score: 1

      If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?

      They're paid by the businesses to be listed. Zero people can read it, and it will still be highly profitable as long as their sales people can convince businesses otherwise.

    4. Re:Profitability? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if you read it or not, they got their money for the ads in the books. It's just like SPAM. Company X pays little Johnny to send out 50 million spam messages. 99.8% of those spam messages were ignored, the other 0.2% were read and drew in some customers. Company X makes profit.

    5. Re:Profitability? by Bomarc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.

      From TFA:

      "The city said the program's popularity led to a reduction of 2 million pounds of paper waste annually."

      and as follow up: How much environmental damage was done to MAKE the phone books? We are talking about people that didn't want the phone books in the first place.

    6. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only get one phone book a year? I usually only get 1 large one a year...

      You only get one large phone book per year? we usually get 3-4 LARGE ones, and as many small ones.

    7. Re:Profitability? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Right, and eventually those businesses will realize that they gain nothing out of advertising in it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    8. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the same reason spam went away!

    9. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if you read it or not, they got their money for the ads in the books. It's just like SPAM. Company X pays little Johnny to send out 50 million spam messages. 99.8% of those spam messages were ignored, the other 0.2% were read and drew in some customers. Company X makes profit.

      Usually company X doesn't profit. The only one who profits is Johnny. It's the same thing with these phone books. As far as I'm concerned they sell businesses a worthless product and are littering on my drive way.

    10. Re:Profitability? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?

      When somebody calls you, do you know if they found your number in the phone directory? Do you know how many people saw your ad in the phone directory? No, and you don't have comparable numbers it just looked like good value for your money. Here in Norway it was printed for every household until a big reservation campaign in 2007 - almost nobody was aware of the possibility, throwing it in the trash - with the result that the White Pages was shut down in 2009 - as in it wasn't even printed at all anymore, the Yellow Pages in 2012 and the local directory is still on life support unless you've reserved against it with a sticker against unsolicited marketing on your mailbox.

      People have Internet on their PCs, on their phones and for the odd case where you don't have either you can call a number locating service for a small fee so nobody misses it. I don't think anybody realized just how few were reading it, I mean yes the online services have been available for a long time but they always sort of expected somebody like the elderly to use it. But then I rather see why they try to choose other ways than reading the smallest readable print possible to cram more numbers into fewer pages, it might be simple to understand but it was hardly friendly for the vision impaired. Maybe we're a bit ahead of the curve here but I think you too might find the same in retrospect.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?

      Unless people actually *are* reading it. If so, then how is this a waste?

      And we're not going to run out of trees any faster than we'll run out of potatoes. Trees used for paper are grown in farms, and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.) Paper production isn't the reason for decreasing numbers of trees, and recycling paper is a huge waste of time and resources.

      The only reason there are fewer trees in the world (and not in the US btw, the number of trees we have in the US has been steadily growing for decades now) is because jungle territory is being cut down to make way for real-estate.

      That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.

      They make money by advertising. People pay for advertisements, listings and such in those things.

      The problem is it wasnt long ago that yellow pages were useful to most americans so most companies are still in the mindset that if they pay for advertising it will be seen by a huge audience. It will take another 6 or 7 years before realize that advertising in the yellow pages is a waste of their money and they stop doing it gradually.

    12. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small businesses often does not have the resources or skill to follow up on effectiveness of their advertisement.
      You have a bunch of small businesses that have advertised in the yellow pages for years that would rather pay another year than risk loosing the business they are (falsely) told they get from it.

    13. Re:Profitability? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you can still sell yellow page adverts even if nobody is reading them.

      besides, it's not like the folks in charge of ordering the prints of them are going to fire themselves now are they...? (it's not like it's a hard job to dump the db and call it a year of work).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Profitability? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      That's the same reason spam went away!

      My imaginary mod points to you.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    15. Re:Profitability? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Your post is Fallacy. Profitability has only an indirect relationship with whether or not anyone reads the book.

      The Publisher gets paid by the Advertiser. As long as the Advertiser pays more than it costs to produce, there is profit for the Publisher.

      The Advertiser gets paid by the Advertisee. As long as the Advertisee maintains a contract, which probably includes many things far more important than publication in the Yellow Pages, with the Advertiser, there is profit for the Advertiser.

      The Advertisee gets paid by customers like normal. As long as the customers pay enough to cover costs and the act of advertising seems to be working, the Advertisee probably isn't going to quibble over exactly which of the various forms of advertising are being used, given that publication in the yellow pages is relatively cheap and not the biggest source of cost in his contract with the advertising company. Like worrying about 1$ in a bill for 50$.

      Note that none of this requires reading or usage of the yellow pages to maintain profitability.
      The much more telling datum is the number of books that end up getting trashed or recycled in a community, which typically floats around 60-75% in studies where they've compared the numbers delivered to the numbers found in the garbage/recycle bins. And that further doesn't take into account the other uses, such as firestarter, paperweight, etc. Other studies as to actual usage of the book to find services still don't usually find numbers higher than about 15% of people sampled.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Profitability? by dywolf · · Score: 2

      advertising in the pages is very cheap and usually sold as part of a package deal by an advertising agency, of which the yellow pages portion is a very minor part of the overall cost.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:Profitability? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

      It's profitable because they charge a lot for the ads. How they convince advertisers to advertise in a book nobody reads is the real mystery. Honestly...I used to get a phone book. I put it out in the garage over the recycle bin. I never onece opened it. When I got the next year's book, the previous year's went into the recycle and was replaced by this year's book...or did I get it backwards? I'll probably never find out. I'm actually not even sure whether I still get a phone book or not.

    18. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More trees is not the same thing as recovered forests. Our forests were decimated by the timber industry and continue to be destroyed. The greater number of trees is the result of gross mismanagement of forests which has suppressed natural fire regimens to protect the inventory of trees. The results is a tremendous increase in tree density beyond anything ever seen without human meddling, and it's the reason wildfires continue to become larger and more destructive with every passing year. Don't come in here and peddle corporate bullshit suggesting that we have some utopian dream of sustainable, healthy forests. We have forests mowed down to make way for monoculture tree farms that support precious little in the way of ecosystems, and the rest of the natural forests are being destroyed by our logging and management practices.

    19. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trees used for paper are grown in farms, and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.)

      While I don't disagree that tree farms exist, I'm calling bullshit on this one. In many (most) cases, trees used in paper production are sourced from sustainable forests (meaning that they log off ~70% of a natural forest and then replant so they can come back in 20-30 years).

      Other sources: 20 years living in a logging town

    20. Re:Profitability? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Does that invalidate the premise that we aren't running out of trees any time soon due to paper production?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    21. Re:Profitability? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      and it will still be highly profitable as long as their sales people can convince businesses otherwise.

      You make it sound like marketers would have to lie to their potential customers.

      <Vizzini>Inconceivable!</Vizzini>

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:Profitability? by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      I don't read it, but I do take out and use all the coupons, before throwing the white pages into the compost pile and the yellow pages into the recycling bin. So the companies putting coupons in there make money from me without me reading it, and the company that puts out the book makes money from the companies putting coupons in there.

    23. Re:Profitability? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.

      Perhaps because the government owns the landfill that has a bunch of worthless phone books in it.
      Its obvious the phone books are not completely worthless. But they are to many people. Those people want them, so they go straight into the trash (or as you put it, they end up costing money through recycling) So rather than generate trash, just don't generate it. Give it to the people who want it.

  14. It won't work, either by blp · · Score: 5, Informative

    We attempted to opt-out of Yellow Pages deliveries in our local area in California, but it doesn't work. The guys who throw these things on everyone's front porch do not care whether you are on the list or not. I'm not even sure that they have a list. You will still get phone books.

    1. Re:It won't work, either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they be done for fly tipping - if someone chuck a lot of paper on my front lawn I would well ticked off.

    2. Re:It won't work, either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother caught one throwing the phone book on his drive way. He has a bit of a thing about it, and is normally really calm, but you do not want to see that fucker lose it. Guess he lost it, because he grabbed it and threw it at the back of the truck, broke out their taillight, screamed at the driver for awhile and then on the phone at the corporate office. He's never gotten one since and no one said shit to him about the property damage.

  15. At what point does free speech become littering? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have always been limitations on "free speech" when it comes to pollution. Even an individual isn't allowed to rant about the lizard men with a megaphone at 3 AM.

    The phone books are put on private property without permission. Is there some law that gives them permission? They're welcome, I suppose, to stand on the sidewalk and read the phone book at me, if they want, or even to stand there with the book open. I suppose they could pay the Post Office to mail it to me, since they have a special legal exemption.

    If they've got some kind of blanket exemption, then of course an opt-out is going to violate privacy. And if this is the case, it sounds like they need to eliminate the blanket exemption, and I don't see "free speech" being a defense against that, since your right to speech ends where my property begins.

  16. Disposal fee by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, what happens if as a private citizen I post a notice on my property saying that any unsolicited material deposited on my property will incur a disposal fee of $100 per item, and then bill the YP company for my disposing of the trash they left without permission?

    Reminder: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to use someone else's property without permission. You want to speak, use public property or hire your own hall.

    1. Re:Disposal fee by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They won't respond to your bill. You might however be able to take them to court over it.

      I would say they are trespassing to deliver it. If they want to have the postman deliver them fine, but I am not giving them permission to step foot on my property.

    2. Re:Disposal fee by Woogiemonger · · Score: 2

      I would say they are trespassing to deliver it. If they want to have the postman deliver them fine, but I am not giving them permission to step foot on my property.

      Not worth trying to keep them out. There are many laws that allow some people to walk up to your door. I tend to believe this explanation, explaining how it varies by local ordinances:

      http://www.newlifelc.com/view.php?id=20130223123856AAHAyYH

      But even if it is with purely commercial interests, don't expect to change the world, let alone Google:

      http://www.itworld.com/legal/129524/google-admits-trespassing-street-view-hit-crushing-1-fine

    3. Re:Disposal fee by niado · · Score: 1

      If they want to have the postman deliver them fine, but I am not giving them permission to step foot on my property.

      The laws vary of course (from state to state in the US) but a person entering your property for the purpose of delivering something is often specifically exempted from trespassing law.

    4. Re:Disposal fee by dywolf · · Score: 2

      General interpretations I've been told are:

      Trespassing is generally defined as presence on property without permission. However, you are generally legally allowed to make a reasonable attempt to establish "permission", and doing so involves a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. Being caught on my land a half mile from the house is not a reasonable attempt and is trespassing. But approaching my front door and knocking is reasonable, and is not trespassing. But if I answer the door and deny permission, you are now trespassing IF you dont make you reasonable attempt to leave in compliance with my wishes. in other words, if I deny permission, you cant be arrested -that instant- for trespassing; reasonable allowance must be made for leaving the property. Now if you make a detour to my backyard or otherwise dont make effort to leave after being denied...then it again becomes trespassing.

      This comes about because there are varous things for which someone may need to establish contact with a person, and that may require inquiring at their door. Things like serving legals papers, etc, come to mind. So attempting to say "you're trespassing" to prevent them from serving those papers, doesn't work.

      The only way I know of (beyond having a mean dog named Chopper) to prevent even the attempt to approach the door to inquire for permission to be there is to also post "No Soliciting", or similar, which serves to indicate that all permission is denied beforehand without even having to inquire, which therefore means any presence on the property is without permission, and thus trespassing.

      Least these are the general rules for most places I've lived.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:Disposal fee by dywolf · · Score: 1

      addendum:
      all that said, generally, from a grandfather who was a door to door insurance salesman who worked across most of the South, including rural areas, the best way to establish the question of permission is if you can ask the person before even getting on their property. such as finding them outside in the field, or by calling ahead if their phone number is available (like some of the larger farms).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:Disposal fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way I know of (beyond having a mean dog named Chopper) to prevent even the attempt to approach the door to inquire for permission to be there is to also post "No Soliciting", or similar, which serves to indicate that all permission is denied beforehand without even having to inquire, which therefore means any presence on the property is without permission, and thus trespassing.
      But process servers still get an exception, right?

    7. Re:Disposal fee by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Wire your front yard sprinklers to a motion detector.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Disposal fee by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yes.
      however Chopper likely won't care about that.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  17. Market really will solve this. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long can they sell advertisement in books nobody looks at?

    Just ignore them. They save me from grabbing the free local rag to start my BBQ. Weather I burn Yellow pages or Yellow journalism it's the same amount of paper. This way the 'News and Review' doesn't get a wrong impression and think anybody is actually reading them.

    Right now, business's are buying yellow pages adds because they always have. Give it a little while.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Market really will solve this. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      TinFoil The local free rag in Seattle is want's this law. So they can sell adds based on BBQ starting circulation. /TinFoil

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Market really will solve this. by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Fuck you spelling pendant. It's a side box dry smoker, I do know the difference. Granting I do grill on it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  18. All direct marketing is spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And should be illegal. The judges that found for the yellow page companies are on the take or just clueless, either way they should be impeached, tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

    1. Re:All direct marketing is spam by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      That sounds extreme.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    2. Re:All direct marketing is spam by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      What part?

  19. Taking the wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Demand more phone books. Make them pay for extra printing.

  20. It's trash, not free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they won't stop delivery then go after them for littering. It's not free speech. To me, the phone books, weekly papers, and flyers that everyone thinks that I simply must have are no more than unwanted litter that is tossed anywhere on a property by brain-dead delivery people that I have to go collect up each week and trash.

  21. Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is paying for the Yellow Pages? Is it tax payer funds or by Yellow Pages? If Yellow Pages is footing the bill, don't worry about opting out and either recycle them or ship them to:
    2247 Northlake Parkway
    Tucker, GA 30084

    Apparently the address is what is used to register their domain. I'm pretty sure they'll get peeved rather quickly when deliveries start piling in.

  22. You still can't get a white pages listing? by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    So who do I pay to get a white pages residential listing, now that I have a mobile phone? Indeed, why does the white pages not list mobile phones? Having an unlisted number is rude to all your friends who might wish to actually find you.

    1. Re:You still can't get a white pages listing? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      If they're friends, they already know my number and address, or could simply ask me. If they're not a friend, they don't need to call or find me.

    2. Re:You still can't get a white pages listing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friends already have my phone number.

  23. Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad enough that you have to pay a fee to these people to keep them from printing your details in a book that they deliver to every household in your vicinity, but now you cannot even tell them to skip delivery to your house without giving up valuable personal information to them that they will undoubtedly capitalize on. They're making money on you hand-over-fist, and you have no choice in the matter -- it's a great gig for "private industry," more so since the practice is now ruled constitutionally protected.

    If you need any more proof that we're circling the drain, then you simply haven't been paying attention.

  24. Much Ado About Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I went to their website and registered. They ask for your address, name and phone number, which is all information they already have if they are making the phonebook. The only thing they ask for that they don't have is an email address. You should have one that you send junk email to anyway if you do any online buying, so I don't see what the big deal is. Nice to be able to get rid of the damn phonebooks!

    1. Re:Much Ado About Nothing by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Just send them an e-mail at example.com... Or do you have to verify it?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  25. Explain by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

    How does opting out of a phone book violate the free speech of a company's ad. Your not stopping them from printing it, your not blocking them from speaking about it and your not taking action which damages the services they provide in any way. I'm really confused how this is a free speech issue. Personally I haven't used a phone book in years, I just Google everything, so I can understand why people would opt of the phone book.

    1. Re:Explain by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They might have a right to free speech, but they don't have a right to be heard. If I stand on a street corner passing out flyers to people, it isn't a violation of my freedom of speech if someone refuses to take a flyer just as it isn't a violation if they take it and toss it into the trash unread.

      Thanks to this ruling, people are being forced to receive the phone books. Will they next be forced to read the phone books instead of tossing them outright? After all, those ads are useless if nobody reads them and if the RIAA/MPAA has taught us anything it is that the government should force the public to prop up failing business models no matter how idiotic.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have more money than you to pay for better free speech.

    3. Re:Explain by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I completely agree with you! Honestly in the last 25 years ( I'm 25 ) I might have used 2 yellow pages ad's to buy services or goods. The phone book is becoming outdated as internet access penetrates more and more of our communities. Not only do people have access to a greater collection of advertisements but they have access to current and up to date advertisements which is something the phone book doesn't even offer. So when you think about it, why a company would push the phone book is silly, you can't keep the ad updated, you can't renew the ad to people who have an old phone book and your not able to continually advertise to them. You have more free speech on the internet, so start leveraging the use of it instead of pushing a 200 year old printed technology.

  26. One step closer to the future of Continuum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legal and ethical opinion:
    The first ten amendments are not rights granted by the government they are rights we spell out as humans that we have regardless of government. These rights do not and should not transfer to a corporation. Rights granted by other amendments may be arguable but dilution of the first ten that constitutes the Bill of Rights should be opposed with great fervor! If corporations are to be granted such rights then those rights need to be either new amendments or new corporate governance laws written the same way.

    Personal opinion:
    This country has enough private secular interest tipping the scales away from the individual constituency in the form of political lobbies with billions to spare. We do not need the government further pandering to these money seekers at the detriment of the people. Congress wallows in its own inability to represent its people and every year it gets more and more obvious that they are not answering to their constituents but the corporations in their districts. We don't need nor want the Supreme Court sticking its nose into that same cesspool.

    1. Re:One step closer to the future of Continuum... by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      The Founders recognized that the institution of government is the primary, and perhaps only mechanism by which individuals are ever deprived of their Rights. Therefore, our rights are elaborated as explicit limitations on government power.

      Corporations were created BY government. Rather than granting government more power to deal with the monster which government created, we should limit the government's power to grant special legal privileges in the first place.

      A corporate charter is basically a contract granting the corporation certain privileges. There is no reason whatsoever that the charter cannot include restrictions such as a ban on campaign contributions and political activity. That's where reform efforts should be focused. It would be insane to amend The Constitution to give the federal government any more power.

  27. Burn them by klek · · Score: 1

    I wonder if we'll be able to make Fire Logs out of all the freaking Yellow Pages books we'll be inundated with.

  28. Are cell phones listed? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Are cell phones listed? I haven't used a phone book in years and I only use Skype. I don't have a home phone nor a cell phone anymore its my way of voting with my dollars :)

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  29. Is the data really that valuable? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It amazes me that companies are willing to pay money for a list of names that are clearly hostile towards unwanted mail. Unless it's for a "do not mail" list, but I don't get the impression it is.

  30. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Even an individual isn't allowed to rant about the lizard men with a megaphone at 3 AM.

    As a former resident of the Lakeview Apartment complex and participant in frequent phone calls to local officials in regards to afore mention megaphone, I can assure you that a sufficiently coherent individual with paranoid schizophrenia can, in fact, rant about whatever she chooses at 3am with, in this case, a P.A. system in her livingroom without being arrested.

  31. Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summary by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I hadn't bothered with this before; I just threw the things into the recycle bin as I got them - but now I'm annoyed enough to use their "official" opt-out form.

    I'm not sure why people are complaining about having to provide their address to do this, though... how else do you expect this to work?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  32. Corporate Rights Trump Citizens by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting case, of a company going directly against the stated (and popular) view of the voters.

    Personally I think the law should have stuck, but since it didn't, let's look at what we can do with what we have:

    1. Work to change legal recognition of corporate personhood.

    2. Establish laws that limit the ability of similar lawsuits to be brought.

    3. Use our own free speech to criticize the companies who pull stunts like this. This lawsuit is a stain on their brand.

    1. Re:Corporate Rights Trump Citizens by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Government created this monster called "The Corporation" and now Government(and many citizens who like the idea of government) wants us to grant them all sorts of new powers to deal with the damages being caused by their monster.

      The way to address this and other corporate abuses is through reform of corporate charter law. The charter grants privileges to a corporation and there is no good reason that it can't also include restrictions. There should also be a clear mechanism by which the charter can be revoked and the corporation dissolved.

  33. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    It is not the address people object to giving out, it is the other fields they demand to have. Name, phone number, email and the rest.

    They only need address, nothing else.

  34. Take another tact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send them back to the company that sent them to you.
    It is one thing to get one another to get thousands.

    Outlaw them totally

  35. A solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city should offer a program by which they pick up unwanted yellow pages and deliver them to the office(s) and work locations of the YP, as an ongoing political protest.

  36. Post a sign by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    'no soliciting or leaving phonebooks'. If they leave a phonebook, then sue the company.
    Issue solved.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. If you don't want phone books in your yard... by Picass0 · · Score: 2

    ...you must help me defeat the Lizard Men once and for all.

    And I was out there no later than 2:45.

  38. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Good point.

    BTW for people who might think they can use a fake address - your email address has to be functional, at least at the time you register - you can't complete registration (which means you can't opt out of anything) until you click on the follow-up email.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  39. The information won't be used improperly! by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

    They will share it with their clients, most of whom are direct marketing agencies, who in turn commit not to use it improperly.

    Well, as long as they pinky-swear.

  40. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Use mailinator.com
    That should save you some hassle.

  41. So deliver them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    My dad still has wood powered heating and phone book pages are really great for starting it.

    Opt out of junk mail? Are you nuts, that's what I use for fueling my stove.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So deliver them by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I have birds. It's quite handy as bedding, and plentiful enough that I can change every day (or more often if needed). I've never actually looked at the things for longer than it takes to tear out a few pages though.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  42. Paper is a renewable resource. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some dumb hippies still stuck in the 70's think we're deforesting for all this paper. Tree farms have been used for a long time. And the paper process makes the carbon less likely to decay into CO2 earlier, so it's a carbon sink (after a sort; not quite as good as treated lumber). Take your free yellow pages and do something with it.

  43. Simple and worthwhile solution... by RoboRay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wait for the next piece of junk mail to come with a pre-paid return postage card. Stick the card to the phonebook and drop it in the mail. This results in:

    1) The idiots forcing you to receive worthless phone book have wasted money.
    2) The idiots sending you other worthless junk have wasted money.
    3) The Post Office gets money.

    1. Re:Simple and worthwhile solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fraud.

    2. Re:Simple and worthwhile solution... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I suppose it could be labeled as fraud in some way. But what it you actually filled out the application or whatever, forgetting some required tidbit, and then included the phone book just as a courtesy, you know as a free gift.

  44. Just throw them away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldnt give my personal information just to stop getting what is essentially junk mail.

    If the yellow pages want to create more waste in the dumps, waste their own time, money, manpower and resouces on giving me that junk book I didnt ask for then its not my fault when I just toss it in the garbage without even so much as looking at it. Or like in my grandmas case she throws it down the basement steps and then tears out pages to use to lite the wood furnance in the winter time.

    I cant imagine all the wasted paper, the wasted gasoline use to haul those millions of tons of books around and gas used to deliver them to homes, all the space taken up each year in landfills and all the time wasted in those things each year. The yellow pages and phone books are wasteful now and nothing else in an age where you can get on the internet while sitting on the toilet, in the middle of the woods, flying in a plane or driving down the road.

  45. Phone books aren't the only info ripoff by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    If you want to opt-out of direct mailing, not only do you have to give them your personal information, they charge $1 for it! The actual site: https://www.dmachoice.org/

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  46. Apartments? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    How does an opt-out even work for apartment buildings? At my apartment, they just drop off a big stack of phone books at the front entrance. There are no names or addresses on them or any other way to tell which one is for which person. Usually they just sit there for a couple weeks (with maybe one or two taken by residents) until the building manager gets tired of seeing them and he tosses them in the recycle bin. Since they seem to drop off more phone books than there are apartments in the building, I can't believe they take one out of the stack to account for an opt-out.

  47. Give up your privacy to the phone book? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Wait a second. It's the phonebook. Who's giving up anything? I assume that they've already got your name and address and phone (assuming you have a land line). They are, after all, a list of names with phones and addresses. You'd be giving up your email, according to the online form, but throwaway accounts would deal with that.

    OTOH . . . I suppose if you only have a wireless phone, and never had landline service -- at least at your current address -- you might not be listed in their database. So mobile users could be subjecting themselves to more junk mail, spam and do-not-call violations.

    Then there's the truly unfortunate soul, the person with no phone number at all. From the opt-out site:

    A valid telephone number is required in order to process and verify opt-out requests. Incorrect or omitted information may prevent us from honoring your request.

    Which is truly bizarre when you think about it, since that's the guy who'd have the least use of a telephone directory of anyone!

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Give up your privacy to the phone book? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Yellow Pages aren't the White Pages. Yellow Pages is an advertising book, filled with business ads, and no personal info.

    2. Re:Give up your privacy to the phone book? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they have your information still. When I was in the business, in 86, briefly. You can buy everyone's name address and phone number from the phone company.
      If they are delivering a phone book, then they probably have that information... or they can easily purchase it.

      That said, what are they going to do with it anyways? sell it to people who know you don't want to be advertised to?
      Oh wait, why would people want ti buy it from them when they can already get it from the phone company.
      You're telephone information is not owned by you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. Free paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could always find a good use for the ream of free paper. It might be a little scratchy, but it should make very effective toilet paper. Or birdcage liner. Or packing material. Or paper mache.

  49. One way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long they would continue to deliver them if a large percentage of the victims threw the books through the office windows of the company that delivered them.

  50. Who cares? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Seattle never should have sued. Just charge anybody involved in the distribution high taxes/fees for the extra recycling it causes. If the company keeps tossing phone books out to people who don't want them, the fee obviously isn't high enough. The city could even maintain an opt-out website that companies could access to save themselves unnecessary recycling fees.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Just charge anybody involved in the distribution high taxes/fees for the extra recycling it causes. If the company keeps tossing phone books out to people who don't want them, the fee obviously isn't high enough.

      So the purpose of the fee isn't to recoup losses for the extra recycling, but instead punish the company into non-existence?

  51. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There have always been limitations on "free speech" when it comes to pollution.

    A lot fewer than you seem to think. Honestly, I can't think of a one that holds universally. Some municipalities have ordinances about fliers, but most don't.

    The phone books are put on private property without permission. Is there some law that gives them permission? They're welcome, I suppose, to stand on the sidewalk and read the phone book at me, if they want, or even to stand there with the book open. I suppose they could pay the Post Office to mail it to me, since they have a special legal exemption.

    They are, effectively, mailing them to you. If you're not surprised that FedEx or UPS can leave parcels on your door step, or that Jehova's Witnesses and neighbors can come knocking on your door, then don't be surprised when the Yellow Pages delivery sub-contractor shows up on your doorstep with his parcel. The city can no more single out thedelivery of yellow pages from other parcels than the post office can single out junk mail from other mail. It's frankly not their place to judge what is worthy to be received based solely on the sender. There is only one real legal mechanisms for preventing someone from talking to you (which is effectively what a city-enforced opt-out is) is a restraining order. I don't think this would pass muster.

    I don't see "free speech" being a defense against that, since your right to speech ends where my property begins.

    This is the sort of pithy little turn of phrase that people always use. "your right to ___ ends where my right to ____ begins." It is almost never true. It's especially untrue when your right is just property rights, probably the weakest form of "right" on the book.

    If you don't have "no trespassing" signs regularly posted, you have almost no right to keep someone off your land. The only thing you have going for you is "breaking and entering", which -- surprise! -- actually requires them to break something and enter. All sorts of jurisdictions and entities have easement rights. If you live in a town you probably 1) were too stupid to ask about which rights of property automatically convey, because some like mineral rights don't, and 2) wouldn't gotten them anyway because you bought it from a person who didn't have the rights in the first place. As far as private observers go, you have no right to privacy for anything you don't keep private with doors, walls, and curtains. Public officials can't search the land immediately around your house (curtilage) without a warrant, but open fields that are part of the same property are fair game. If you fail to secure some dangerous tool or feature on your real property, you could be breaking major laws because you have an attractive nuisance.

    And these are the laws that hold pretty much everywhere, ignoring more nuanced laws like zoning, planning, and ordinances. In other words, just because you scratched a line in the dirt and put it on file ate the county clerk's office doesn't mean you have some sort of isolated kingdom. You're part of a community, like it or not. So is the yellow page company. Consider it your cross to bear. You do not have as many special rights as you think you do.

    And on a related note, I'm a bit tired of seeing torrents of "corporations shouldn't have rights" comments on every single article. Corporations are masses of people. People have rights. Even if you feel like arguing that people should somehow lose basic rights when they agree to form a corporation -- which, incidentally, is crazy -- then all you're really doing is encouraging corporations to farm out all their work to single-person token "contractors". One human paid expressly for the purpose of bypassing laws. It already happens all the time in zoning and real estate, and it only increases the overall level of corruption. People have a right to live, to property, to speech, and numerous other rights without which the other rights w

  52. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    It is not the address people object to giving out, it is the other fields they demand to have. Name, phone number, email and the rest.

    They only need address, nothing else.

    If you've got a landline, you're not giving the phonebook anything they don't already have -- if you know about throwaway email addresses.

    Maybe the whole idea is to cheaply build a database of cellphone users without having to pay the mobile operators for their customer lists . . .

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  53. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    Use mailinator.com That should save you some hassle.

    Now we only need "phoninator". That might be a heck of a business opportunity for someone who could figure out how to make money at it. Or at least convince someone to buy them up before the bills come due.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  54. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    I don't nor does anyone I know under the age of 50 have a landline.

  55. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    That seems like an idea.
    Just have it play advertising when they call.

    "Thanks for calling now a word from our sponsors...."

  56. I have a Yellow Pages by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    It currently sits on my front porch, having been delivered at some point early last year. I'm curious to see if the next one will simply be piled atop its remains!

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:I have a Yellow Pages by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      That's what I did with the literature that some religious group dropped on my doorstep. It partially dissolved over the summer and then froze into a solid mass. No new documents have since appeared.
      Phone book was delivered in a plastic bag though which I didn't want decomposing into the environment.

    2. Re:I have a Yellow Pages by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      If they actually do stack it on top, I'm going to start putting grave markers with years behind each of them and make a little display.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  57. Not this again. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Corporations are not people, and do not get natural rights such as the right to free speech.

    Corporations are organized by people who do have the constitutional right to speak collectively, to do business collectively, and so on.

    Forums like Slashdot can exist only where those who fund them are not personally responsible for all the debts of the organizations which manage them.

    This is basic.

    This is part of what gives meaning to freedom of speech, freedom of association.

    The EFF is a corporation.

    Not-For-Profit, but still a corporation.

    The Declaration of Independence is framed in terms of natural law. The US Constitution is not --- and there is a reason for that. The Constitution is a legal document and not a philosophical argument.

    It is all about setting the rules and boundaries for collective action.

    "We the people" get to make the big decisions --- and take the country in any direction we choose to go.

    1. Re:Not this again. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If people want to get together solely for the purpose of speaking collectively, they should be able to do so.

      A corporation, however, is far more than that. It is a separate fictitious persona that, for many reasons (such as liability), is disassociated with the actual people running it. There is no reason why it shouldn't be heavily regulated by the state, since the state is what gave it the ability to exist in the first place - and it does so solely at the suffering of the state. If people don't want that kind of control, they're always free to organize themselves in other ways that do not have special recognition and benefits from the state.

  58. Re:Only really useful for disasters or power outag by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Informative

    But, recently there have been issues where we lost power + internet/data, yet will had access to a phone. In which case, I guess it's useful then.

    If you've still got cell service -- even if (especially if) you don't have data service -- text your query to 466453 ('GOOGLE') and get an answer by SMS.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  59. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    People are probably dropping actual trash and dog shit on your property and you need the government to protect you from a once-per-year phone book delivery? Religious crazies, corrupt politicians, and brainwashed cookie girls actually pound on your door demanding attention and money. A kid was even seen on your lawn! I'd say the phone books fall well within the normal order.

  60. Re:Only really useful for disasters or power outag by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    Hence the problem. After Sandy, we had no cell service or internet, but the analog phonelines in the area still worked.

    So while yeh, that meant we still had access to 411 and such... at that point having some yellow pages could work out well.

  61. Just make it a case of trespassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just say the phone book companies and other companies who work for them don't have permission to come onto your property. That way, they'd have to be trespassing to drop one off, which can be a potential criminal act.

    You'd have to contact a lawyer for the proper wording, and to properly notify all the companies involved. But it sounds like you could easily find a bunch of people to pool their money to do that.

    1. Re:Just make it a case of trespassing by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      What if they just toss it onto your property from a public sidewalk or street?

      If you can get people motivated enough to organize and contribute money for a cause, I think you can find something better than an anti-phonebook campaign. How about some anti-CISPA activism instead?

  62. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by cifey · · Score: 1

    Could they just leave a piece of paper with a link to their website like any modern business?

    --
    Hello Cruel World
  63. Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

    Go to the website and fill out and fill out as much garbage info as you can, aside from your address. Just a thought.

    --
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
  64. Start an "I dumped the Yellow Pages" campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have people post pictures of their yellow pages in the recycling the day after they received it.
    Advertisers will realize they are getting nothing from this and will drop out.

    Destroy the business model and the problem will take care of itself.

  65. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    I don't nor does anyone I know under the age of 50 have a landline.

    I've been seeing more people getting land-lines again after having kids. They cite such reasons as: having a phone a smaller child could call 911 with, being able to reach a babysitter (including grandparents) that didn't have his or her own mobile, power outages and so on. One friend even ported his cell number (which he'd ported long ago from a land line) back to a home number. I haven't done it myself, but every so often my wife brings up the subject of "shouldn't we have a home phone?" so I suppose it's imminent.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  66. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    So get a voip phone or one of those devices that your cell phone can dock into.

  67. Re:Only really useful for disasters or power outag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    meh. The numbers I frequently call would be on my cell phone phonebook. The phonebook I got years ago is likely still 90% accurate for businesses. With that many services lost (power+data), I'm inclined to drive to a hotel where maybe there will a phonebook near the Bible (or Phonebook near the bible).

    In the worst case - not wanting to do 411 - maybe I call someone and ask. Hopefully I'm not asking for the number to the nearest abortion clinic.

  68. Send it back by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 0

    If I had the resources, my solution would be: take up a collection, where everyone can bring their yellow pages and throw them in the back of a dump truck... then drive it down to the publisher's office and unload them all in front of their building... not littering because each person who tossed their book into the dump truck did so with the express understanding that it would be delivered to a specific address.

    Solution #2: Call every business in the yellow pages and tell them you refuse to patronize them expressly because they advertise in the yellow pages.

    The second is probably more realistic, but the first is definitely more fun!

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  69. Buggy Whips by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    Dang you whippersnappers with your fancy "internets" and "tubes".

    You just don't get the intimacy of that fancy yellow paper.
    Comes in handy as bum wipe if you run out of corn cobs.

     

  70. I'm glad I live in an apartment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I want a phone book, all I have to do is pick one off the stack sitting in the lobby every time a new book comes out.

  71. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends where you live. In my community there is a noise restriction after 10 pm. If someone gets too noisy, we can call in the police to get them to quiet down.

  72. Re:Only really useful for disasters or power outag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phonebook is treated with so many nasty chemicals you would never want to use it as fireplace fuel unless you were incredibly desperate or hated your family. It is made to survive being outside for over a year.

    Recycle it, please.

  73. So simple by Genda · · Score: 1

    Opt out and provide the personal information for the Managing Board of Yellow pages. Duh, live by the sword...

  74. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping is a way to make money doing that. Though I think the rules were changed recently to try and stop that - ah there it is: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/21/1646249/fcc-tariff-changes-mean-no-more-free-conference-calls

  75. WA has Stand and Defend too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Washington State law, we have Stand and Defend rights, so we can shoot anyone who tries to litter on our property.

    Like the people with Yellow Pages.

  76. Advertise in your town... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Collect unwanted yellow pages and burn them to make electricity, steam and purify waste water. Since they're a renewable resource that's almost carbon neutral, and you're preventing the unwanted use of landfills, you have a winner on multiple counts.

  77. Why do you need a phone? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Do what I did: Get rid of your phone.

    The Network is ubiquitous. You only think you need a phone -- you've been marketed. What you actually need is wifi, and it's pretty much everywhere, with very few exceptions. I live in a rural area and there are wifi connections everywhere, a good many of them open, and others available for the asking.

    That still leaves you with text messaging, IM, email, VOIP, etc. With a modern tablet or phone, you can even do video.

    That's all quite aside from the financial and sanity benefits.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Why do you need a phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, you're an idiot and a jerk. You're advocating stealing other people's internet bandwidth.

      ..financial benefits

      Yeah, like I said: STEALING.

    2. Re:Why do you need a phone? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Also add on top of that that Yellow pages companies deliver to addresses, not phones...

    3. Re:Why do you need a phone? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like many other people, I maintain a open wifi connection specifically to provide for public access. Likewise, I maintain an open 144 MHz repeater, and a while ago, a packet BBS that could take and deliver email. I also write free software such as this. When I mean something to be free, or shared for free, there's no negative to taking advantage of that. When I write commercial software, I make sure that I've made the transaction required clear.

      Many commercial and/or public establishments make open wifi available; coffee houses, McDonalds, libraries, etc. Doesn't hurt a thing to use those connections.

      Now if you prefer not sharing, that's fine -- that's your choice. If you want your connection(s) closed, then by all means close them. The point of an open connection is that it's open. Such things can be used responsibly. A text message, simple text email or IM is absolutely insignificant to any particular wifi connection. A compressed voice connection isn't horrible, bandwidth-wise, either. The more open connections there are, the better it all works as far as portability goes.

      Just FYI, the financial benefit I was talking about was the lack of a phone bill; in such a situation, you need to keep your own wifi available, obviously, and you can certainly use that, and keep it closed, without using anyone else's if you want to. You know, it was only a few years ago that almost no one had a portable phone. We survived just fine that way.

      Perhaps you might consider learning to share a bit. You know, like open source or free software. Or not. I don't care. I posted to offer those who were open minded a change to consider an opportunity. Not to convert anyone. I'm already phone-bill free, you see.

      As for stealing, I'm pretty sure you don't know what that word means. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Why do you need a phone? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      life a few other people, not many.

      Of course, the phone system is more reliable and better regulated.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  78. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    VOIP is not a direct, complete replacement for POTS. In POTS I have a direct hard line to the CO with generators ( i know, i asked when i did some contract work ), VOIP i get a battery in a closet at best.

    --
    Good-bye
  79. Re:Thanks for putting the opt out link in the summ by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is.
    That is an extreme edge case. Besides you would still have your cell phone.

    The odds of you being out of the house, the children being with a baby sitter with no cell phone and the power going out have to be pretty minuscule.

    Anything that takes out power might well take out the line back to the CO as well. Around here ice takes down trees which take down lines and poles, POTS does not survive that failure condition at all. Seems cutting the line with a tree branch is like that.

  80. Put pressure on local businesses by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Collect all the phone books. Instead of dropping them off at the phone company drop them off at the local pizza place. You need to to target the source of income for these books.

  81. Re:At what point does free speech become littering by PRMan · · Score: 1

    then all you're really doing is encouraging corporations to farm out all their work to single-person token "contractors"

    Sounds like a way to help unemployment.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  82. I'm going to drop my phonebooks off at city hall by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I don't know about any other Seattle peeps, but I'm going to give it back to city hall. Yep, going to dump them at city hall, I suggest all peeps do it.

    Maybe they'll figure out something different next time.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  83. Monitor stands by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    ...but then what am I to use for a stand for my monitor???

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  84. AYFKM? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Think about what the issue here is:
    An organization that has your address and name wants your address and name so they can stop delivering it to you.

    OMG!!! ALERT THE PRIVACY POLICE!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  85. Re:I'm going to drop my phonebooks off at city hal by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Don't do that. Clearly the city wants to help, but they can't.
    Deliver it to your governor, senators and congress people. You know, people who can actual make changes. Sending it to city hall is a monumental waste, and a slap in the face to the people trying to help you.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  86. Re:Profitability? It works by Green+Salad · · Score: 2

    I help small businesses entrepreneurs and can offer a different perspective. I've never had to train a janitor, barber, dispatcher, tow-truck operator or politician how to use a phone book. (or how to use one safely, or how to properly-configure or update their telephone to connect to a particular phone number)

    The economics of yellow pages still work. About a quarter of the volume for a couple IT support business I'm familiar with...comes from phone book ads. Which, per customer, provide an incredibly cheap "fire and forget" low-maintenance form of advertising for blue and pink-collar businesses that don't involve owners sitting at computers. I'm a geek and have a browser running on me (or near me) close to 100% of the time, but noticed that some small businesses just don't exist online...and probably for good reason.

    There are inherently local industries of which most high paid digital technorati seem blissfully unaware. For example, try looking for a cheap tow-truck (emphasis on cheap) when you're in the grocery parking lot and your car won't start.

    I did, less than a year ago, and noted only the highest priced scum of the earth operators with local govt contracts, gaudy chromed trucks, complicated fees STARTING at $85 minimum hook-up fee had web sites. The patient and polite owner/operators that answered their own phone and charged $40-$50, fixed price per tow, were accessible to me only via the phone-book.

    Janitorial services can have an effective print ad with just a few minutes of specification and a phone call. The immigrant with a mop and bucket that can't achieve the same cost-time efficiency with a local web designer or Go-Daddy rep that they can achieve with the Yellow Pages sales girl. Advertising "to the whole world" when you want local customers for a local activity creates its own problems, such as making you an easy target for international spammers/scammers/web-site defacers. It probably means that to monitor the presentation of your web-ad, you'd have to go get a computer in addition to purchasing the mop & bucket. You'd have to learn how to use that computer, then pay guys like me to de-louse it, join the forced-march of software licensing, pay local lawyers to defend against scanning patent infringement law-suits because they "probably infringe" if they have a small business with a computer. etc, responding to bank notices they need to type in their old PIN at the following link, etc., when she just wants to start a business mopping floors to feed her kids because she doesn't want her kids to grow up seeing welfare as a solution.

    I travel a lot for business. My favorite barber shops (that's right, *real* barber shops...not styling salons) could only be found in the hotel room's phone book, not the guest services directory or the web. The barber shops I like are staffed with neatly dressed old gentlemen that will keep you keep you up to date on sports, local politicians, zoning laws and economic scuttlebutt while giving you a perfect trim & shave. They don't do web-sites and don't do appointments. On the other hand, you may be waiting next to the zoning commissioner, because he's made to wait for his turn too.

    Barber shops and tow-trucks remind me that for some activities, phone books are the "on ramp" to getting "plugged in" to "effective knowledge networks" of people and personalities for getting things done.

    That said, I see sites like Yelp! and Google Places increasingly performing the same function at zero cost and with "little or no effort" on the business owner's part.

  87. just post them back with no stamps on the package. by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    make them pay extra to receive them...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  88. "Going forward" - did not read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... after that sickeningly cliched and stupid, meaningless phrase...

    "Going forward"

    "Moving forwards".

    Idiots.

  89. Why not ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Make giant paper mache/spit wads and launch them at the corporate building with a trebuchet. Figure out where the executive suite is and call that the bullseye.

    Why bother making paper mache? That's a lot of work. What's wrong with just launching the phone books? Or a bale of them?

    B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Why not ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Phone books won't stick and ooze.

      I bet I could make a buttload of paper mache out of phone books with a wood chipper and a kiddy pool or three.

      If I've already gone to the expense and trouble of making a trebuchet, I'd go all out. I might even spring for some ink for the 'spit wads'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  90. Lizard men at 3am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an individual isn't allowed to rant about the lizard men with a megaphone at 3 AM.

    What if there actually are lizard men at 3am posing a clear and present danger?

    You have to think of these things or else you end up with someone not warning you about lizard men when they could have.

    4am may be too late.

  91. The More the Merrier by Vengance+Daemon · · Score: 1

    I have no problem receiving these phone books and I also am not bothered by junk mail. I think of all the jobs that they generate, from data collectors to layout artists to printers to delivery people. Particularly with the trouble the USPO is in, the junk mail is helpful; the postage prepaid envelopes in credit card ads even serve the USPO better. I find no real strain in putting such items in the recycle bin thus supporting even more jobs.

  92. Pfft.... by Valcrus · · Score: 0

    Do what I do. I pickup the phone book. Walk to the side of my garage and throw them in the trash can. I don't need or use them. I can't remember the last time I even opened a phone book. If they want to waste money printing and sending it to me more power to them. I'll keep doing the same thing.

  93. Ballot name order effect by stoploss · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if somebody did an empirical experiment on this.

    There have been such studies in the US already; Google "ballot name order effect". It even looks like some of them have controlled for whether party affiliation was displayed.

    I also wanted to mention the related Australian concept of the donkey vote, though that's an unintended consequence of compulsory voting.

  94. So I gave my land line and a dump email account by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    ...and now I'm opted out. What's the big issue here?

  95. Unlisted Phone number.... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    .... used to mean unlisted in the phone book. Doesn't that still hold true?

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  96. Yellow Pages should collect unwanted books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even better, the city could require the phone book company to collect the unwanted books at their cost.

    Their delivery folks often gain unauthorized access to apartment buildings by waiting for someone to come out or convince random people to open the gate, in order to leave their trash at your doorstep.