Slashdot Mirror
Senators Attempting To Remove Robocall Loophole
New submitter bearded_yak writes: Last week, it was reported here that a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill. In the end, the loophole survived. Now, several senators want to remove it with Senator Ed Markey's "Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls" (HANGUP) Act. Meanwhile, according to an article at Consumerist, "the Federal Communications Commission has nine months to craft rules dictating the conditions under which the government would be allowed to make these robocalls", so perhaps this loophole will meet its end before that time.
But in case that never happens, you can just buy a call blocker and hook it up to your phone.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
... love of "clever" backronyms? They're neither cute nor clever.
Swishdashers living in their parents basement can't really expect to receive legitimate phone calls. And, mum is just a holler away.
Why would you ever answer the phone anyway?
Do you have a source for this? I do like the fact that they are trying to close the loophole before it is implemented but I can find little to back up your claim.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
You might try to do your own homework at thomas.loc.gov, where everything is published for all to see.
That's so nice of you to want to protect us from spam. But you know what's even more annoying and threatening and expensive than spam?
Worse than spam, is stuff that "finds its way" into our laws without ever being attributed. The guilty parties are never punished or even informally shamed or identified so that anyone can ever vote approval or disapproval for that person in the next election.
Put an end to unattributed "malgislation" (eww, let's keep working on finding the right word) and then you'll really be heroes. I want every item in every bill to have a person's name on it. Let them continue to be as evil and un-American as they want with their laws, but let's stop allowing them to be irresponsibly anonymous when they do it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm not someone who has to deal with debt collectors so this isn't a problem for me. People who do have to deal with debt collectors generally did it to themselves so I have little sympathy. But I am so sick of cold callers. Just enforce the do not call list.
Typical right wing propaganda.
"Thanks, Obama!"
You seem to be giving the republican party a free pass on this even though they voted for it, and not one of them is supporting this move to repeal it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Democrats asked for this loophole first... now they want to remove it?
Once it became public the "lobbyist campaign donations vs. potential public backlash" equation changed.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You do realize the president is not all democrats right? He is a single democrat.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I use Google Voice to block robocalls. If a phone call comes in with no caller ID and doesn't leave a voicemail I add it to the block list. So far it has been quite effective.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
Investigating "a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill":
I can narrow this down to having been introduced by the House. Commit 2015-10-28 pushed by House shows:
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Previous 2015-05-22 revision committed by Senate
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Diff places blame on house.
Perhaps an improvement would be
"The United States House of Representatives added a loophole for debt collection robocalls into the budget bill":
This is the limit of my journalism abilities here, but just hoping to make some improvement.
I would glad pay money for Slashdot if somehow the journalism could be improved.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls" (HANGUP) Act."
Your politicians spend far too much time thinking up cute names for laws, instead of enacting or repealing the bastard things.
Why would the debt collection industry be calling anyone who is not a debtor?
No need to get snippy. Since you posted an exact quote, it seemed like maybe you had the link.
Who gives a shit about Democrat/Republican anymore? It's one big morass called "government" that screws over the people of the USA on a consistent basis. Arguing R vs. D only perpetuates this system and has gotten us precisely nowhere.
In my adult lifetime, I've seen Democrats in control of the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently (1993-1994 & 2009-2010) and I've seen Republicans have the same control (2001-2005). In each case, things only got worse for the average citizen.
Government is the problem regardless of which of these two asshat parties happens to be in charge.
This loophole has come from the White House for at least 3 years:
I quote from page 168:
Improve Treasury Debt Collection. -- ”The Budget includes two proposals that would increase collections of delinquent debt:
Provide authority to contact delinquent debtors via their cell phones.—The Budget proposes to clarify that the use of automatic dialing systems and prerecorded voice messages is allowed when contacting wireless phones in the collection of debt owed to or granted by the United States. In this time of fiscal constraint, the Administration believes that the Federal Government should ensure that all debt owed to the United States is collected as quickly and efficiently as possible and this provision could result in millions of defaulted debt being collected. While protections against abuse and harassment are appropriate, changing technology should not absolve these citizens from paying back the debt they owe their fellow citizens. The proposal would also allow the Federal Communications Commission to implement rules to protect consumers from being harassed and contacted unreasonably. This proposal would result in PAYGO savings of $120 million over 10 years.
A measly $12 million a year. Congress spends more than that on toothpicks. The pay-per-minute cell phone plan users would see more than $120 million in extra cell phone minutes.
Each subsequent year (2013, 2014, and 2015) budget from the White House has the same loophole. Google:
"Fiscal Year 2015 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government" and go to page 123.
"that a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill". Just like your English teacher might have done, I want to see this phrase re-written in the active voice. I want appropriate attribution for such a loophole.
And the budget from the House and senate also had the loophole. Blaming it on one person is childish. The question is realized who is fighting to stop it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Robocalls from political campaigns are exempted too. My parents made a largish political donation a few years back, which apparently put them on some sort of list. They were harassed by robocalls asking for more political donations for over a year. It was so bad that when I visited a few months before the election, they didn't even bother answering the phone anymore, letting it go straight to voicemail and answering only if it was someone they knew leaving a message. They got 5-10 of these calls every night while I was there. When they moved and I asked if they wanted to keep their old phone number, their answer was hell no.
I get that call EVERY DAY on my cell phone, trying to offer me lower rates on my credit card(s). I've been getting the call every day for the last 2 years. I've tried just about everything. For an entire month I pressed 1 to talk to a representative and pretended to be interested to work my way up the chain, so that I could waste their time. I hoped that would get them to take me off the list. Didn't work. I have tried ignoring the calls, that doesn't work either. I have threatened them with everything from legal action to bodily harm. That doesn't work either. If I knew where their offices were, I'd go burn the place down.
Most Americans hate robocalls. More Americans put themselves on the “Do Not Call” (DNC) list than voted for any presidential candidate. The law does not work for two reasons. First, the federal government refuses to enforce it so none of the robocallers end up in jail. Second, the politicians wrote loopholes for themselves and friends. Political campaigns are allowed to make robocalls as are certain kinds of political non-profits.
The only answer I can see is to create a political non-profit to advocate for the end of all robocals by using.... robocalls. Let’s call it the “ National Association To Stop ALL Robocalls” (NATSAR), and have the organization distribute to its members free software that allows them to randomly robo-call area code 301, 703, 202 and 212 numbers with a message saying “Hi, we are NATSAR and we want your support for legislation to make it a crime to send ANY unwanted /Marketing/Polling/Political message to a person on the DNC list. Would you like to join us?”. When the people in the DC area and NYC who run our government start getting 20 “political”- and thus legal- robocalls every day at dinner they’ll do something about it.
I spend time in the Virginia suburbs of DC and take my word for it they don’t get tons of spam calls like people in the rest of the country. Why? For the same reason that in the 1960s every city in the U.S. except Washington had a Mafia crime family. The deal was “We’ll leave you alone in DC as long as we get a free hand to operate in the rest of the country”.
You mean the Democratic party is totally homogeneous, just like the republicans?
%sarcasmometer explodes%
Dude relax, he sent you a simple request for your resources on a topic that YOU brought up and that he is only passively interested in. You've clearly done more research than a casual Google search so, like it or not, you're the authority here. There is nothing in their post that even hints at attempting to refute your claim, it was a genuine inquiry for information, not a declaration of war.
Do you have a source for this? I do like the fact that they are trying to close the loophole before it is implemented but I can find little to back up your claim.
You might try to do your own homework at thomas.loc.gov, where everything is published for all to see.
No, when you cite an alleged fact, you should give the citation.
Presumably you have a citation, if it's a real fact and not something you made up. When you don't provide it, a pretty good guess is that either
(1) it's something you just made up, and hence I shouldn't waste my time to try to track the non-existent fact down with an internet search, or
(2) it was too much trouble for you to do the internet search to find-- and if it was too hard for you to find, being sarcastic about why I won't spend my time finding it is completely hypocritical.
Executive summary: when you cite a fact, it is your burden of proof to provide the citation.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"Government is the problem" is literally a Republican talking point, so you must be really stupid to think you can pass it off as some neutral statement.
Move to Somalia and enjoy your sand nigger government-less paradise, Randroid.
"HANGUP - Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls." NASA level acronym cleverness.
Just give me a way to white list the #'s I want to talk to and send everybody else directly to Voice Mail. They call all they want. No need to make any laws. Why isn't this the standard way it works already?
Sorry for the self reply, but I want a Pay Wall option on my Phone that says if you're not on the white list and you want to donate $0.50 to my phone bill, you have to have pre-funded an account that lets you Pay the $0.50 to my bill if I pick it up. If a phone company wants to rule the world, make this an option.
Two groups of asshats causing problems, no doubt about that.
> Government is the problem regardless of which of these two asshat parties happens to be in charge
"Government isn't the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem. " - Ronald Reagan
The republicans did pull a pretty good trick on the democrats a couple of years ago. The two parties couldn't agree on which government offices should get a budget "cut" (which means slow the growth of) and which ones to grow faster. So to ensure they'd eventually come to agreement, they said if they didn't come to agreement, EVERYBODY'S favorite program would get a budget "cut". Nobody wants that, right? So surely with that "sequestration" ultimatum in place, both sides would be ready to wheel and deal to get it done, the Democrats thought.
What they didn't fully realise is that as much as the Republicans like to grow their favorite programs, they're also happy to cut back on government in general. So sequestration remained, and the growth of government was cut.
Yes, the Republicans are asshats who do stupid things, but the repubs KNOW both parties are asshats. And sequestration shows they're willing to reduce their own asshattery if that's what it takes to reduce Democrat asshattery.
That, to me, is definitely the better of two bad choices.
I got a better idea for how you can spend your time, Congress: How about you close all the 'loopholes' that allow our own gods-be-damned government from warrantless spying on our communications? IDGAF about 'robocalls', I'll just not answer the phone for numbers I don't know, but how about you stop the gods-be-damned NSA from watching us all like we're all gods-be-damned convicts?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This would be excellent, especially if you could easily refund the transaction - for example if a family member or a legitimate business with a real reason to contact you calls from an unknown number.
I have fantasized about this for years. Glad someone else recognizes the need for this as well.
On another note, now we know why there are so many one-word campaign signs littering the landscape. The knuckleheads in Congress can't be bothered to find out what they are voting on, short of yet another acronym, and they assume we are equally shallow.
Sad truth is, much of the time they are right.
My phone doesn't even display a number if it's in the address book. It displays your name. If it's not in the address book, it goes to voicemail. This isn't even a state of the art phone. It's an ancient flip.
In the five years prior to sequestration legislation, from 2006-2011, federal spending increased from $2.65 trillion to $3.603 trillion. So it was growing 6.5% per year, on average.
Sequestration was passed in 2011 and didn't fully go into effect until early 2013. From 2013-2015, federal spending increased from $3.45 trillion to $3.68 trillion. That's 3% per year.
So it was growing at 6.5% per year before sequestration, and it's been growing at 3% afterwards. I call that a significant difference. it's not a -spending cut-, let's be clear. They're spending 3% more each year. Still, it's quite a bit better than spending 6.5% more each year, as they were doing before sequestration.
PS, the difference is actually more dramatic than that. Population and GDP increases a bit each year. GDP has been growing at about 2% per year, so federal spending (measured in dollars) can increase by 2% without increasing the government's the -percentage- or -share- of the money that government takes.
So while pre-sequestration, federal government spending increased at 6.5% per year, 2% is simply an increase in the economic size of the country, meaning the feds "share" of our paychecks increased by "only" 4.5% each year. Similarly, after sequestration spending (in dollars) increased by 3%. Of that, 2% is growth, so the government's "cut" in percentage terms increased by 1%.
Looking at the change in the percentage that the government takes, their portion was increasing at 4.5% before sequestration and that was cut to 1% increase after sequestration. So the rate of growth was cut by 80%.
He is, but that's not new; no different from democrats who ignored when Bush had a democratic majority congress to work with/against and blamed him solely for so much. It goes both ways.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
No, when you make a claim it is up to you, the writer, to provide the sources. Telling others to look up your shit is lazy and lame and a good way to get a failing grade.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Nuff Said.
I'm switching my phone number to a $5,000 a minute pay-per-incoming-call line.
Who's with me?
The loophole for debt collection robocalls is fine. How about if you don't like calls from debt collectors, robo or live, you pay your damn bills? It's worked for me for several decades now. Never in my life have I gotten a call from a debt collector, because I take care of the problem before it reaches the point the original debtor needs to sell it to a collector.
There should be severe penalties on continued calling when they've been informed they either have the wrong person, or, with documentation, that the debt has been taker care of. Other than that, you deserve to be harassed to settle your debts.
You're a bit confused. The Wikipedia article isn't a bad start. Sequestration was just extended until I think 2020. Some spending bills have been passed, none of which meet the parameters to break sequestration, because the Republicans haven't been willing to give the democrats a trillion more in pork in exchange for a trillion in republican pork. Not that they don't want it - they just don't want it badly enough to spend $2 trillion in order to get $1 trillion (especially the younger, more fiscally conservative republicans) .
....and if it worked on spam too.
You have to use capital letters if you want to be heard.
Robocalls from political campaigns are exempted too. My parents made a largish political donation a few years back, which apparently put them on some sort of list. They were harassed by robocalls asking for more political donations for over a year. It was so bad that when I visited a few months before the election, they didn't even bother answering the phone anymore, letting it go straight to voicemail and answering only if it was someone they knew leaving a message. They got 5-10 of these calls every night while I was there. When they moved and I asked if they wanted to keep their old phone number, their answer was hell no.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about robo-calls, junk mail, spam, political calls, surveys, or any form of door-to-door solicitation (whether it is selling services, goods, religion, political parties, even charities), unless a person opts in, it's all illegal under the Bill of Rights, highest law in the land, and Congress can do nothing to change this by creating exemptions.
In particular, all of these an illegal violation of one or more rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people), or the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people).
One such fundamental right is the right to not have one's time wasted. Human lifespan is, after all, finite, and stealing a portion of somebody's life is no different than stealing their money. In fact, stealing somebody's money is a crime in any rational society primarily because life is finite, and it takes a portion of an individual's life to earn any amount of money. Similarly, kidnapping is a crime because it involves stealing a portion of somebody's life.
Another fundamental right is the right to privacy, which naturally includes the right to not be disturbed by unwanted visitors or callers in one's home.
In this digital age, charities can reach the public by creating websites, and anybody that wants to has the option to submit a portion of every paycheck, or other forms of recurring donation, to a charity. This is in addition to the considerable support for the poor that is provided through taxes. Going door to door was always a violation of fundamental rights, but it is an especially egregious one in this day and age. As such, the concept of going door to door for charity is entirely obsolete, and the vast majority of people doing so can be presumed to be engaged in fraud, or other crimes, or unknowingly working for an organization that is engaged in such crimes.
All advertising sent to a person's home, phone, or email, must be opt in. Similarly, before anybody can go to somebody's door to sell something, they must have opted in. In all cases, it must be fast and easy for those who have opted in, to change their mind and opt out. Opting out happens automatically when somebody moves.
The Bill of Rights supersedes contract law. No contract can be written to pay for killing somebody - violating the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, purchasing a product or service, or making a donation, can not be tied to opting-in to advertising by any form of contract.
The executives and majority owners of any organization that violates these rights are individually and collectively responsible for violations of these rights. These leaders and majority owners are in command or have dominant influence: they have the responsibility to make sure their organization is in compliance. This applies to any such organization, including businesses, religions and other non-profits, and political parties. Like contract law, corporate law is subordinate to the Bill of Rights: this responsibility happens irregardless of any usual shielding provisions of corporate law, and follows chains of ownership until human beings are reached.
Among other things, these leaders demonstrate their lack of fitness to hold any position of public trust or responsibility, including the ownership of land (a public trust with respect to