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."

61 of 357 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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).
    9. 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...

    10. 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.

    11. 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...
    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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=-
    15. 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.

    16. 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".

    17. 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
    18. 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...
    19. 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.

    20. 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...
    21. 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...
    22. 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.
       

    23. 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
    24. 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.

    25. 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"

  2. 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 Hentes · · Score: 2

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  8. 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 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?

    2. Re:Profitability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the same reason spam went away!

    3. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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 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

    2. 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.
  12. 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'
  13. 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
  14. 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'
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.