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.
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.
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.
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.
>Why would you ever answer the phone anyway?
Because I am an adult.
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.
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.
The debtor lost the number a long time ago (didn't pay phone bills either.) Someone else gets the number; stuppid debt collectors refuse to believe they're calling a wrong number. Real debtors also claims "wrong number" when a debt collector calls.
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.
Why would the debt collection industry be calling anyone who is not a debtor?
Not sure if it was legal for them to do so, but debt collectors once called our residence looking for information about a neighbor who apparently wasn't picking up their calls or otherwise responding to them. Being debt-free or collections-free apparently doesn't keep a person collection-call-free.
I'm an adult, and I rarely answer any number I don't recognize immediately. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail and I'll call them right back at the number they provide.
But since 99.99% of the calls I receive from un-recognized numbers are horseshit robo-calls, no, I agree with commenter above: Why on earth would someone answer the phone any more?
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.
For some time I got calls at home trying to collect debts on my runaway daughter; said "hasn't lived here in X years, bbye". Collector A sells debt to Collector B, lather/rinse/repeat
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%
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
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?
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.
Given that I get a dozen or more phone calls a week for either someone who had the phone number before us, or someone who was an in-law 15 years ago, I disagree. They apparently have the right to call whoever they want in search of the people who owe them money, not just the ones that owe them money.
And worse, the laws that protect the debtors do nothing to protect 3rd parties.
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 want to see this phrase re-written in the active voice.
"Mistakes were made." "A police-involved shooting."
The language is full of these. Take a number and wait your turn.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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) .
That's why this needs to be opposed. Robocalling costs the debt collectors almost nothing, so if they can robocall at will they'll just add any number to the list that might have anything to do with the debt they are trying to collect on. So expect that number of calls from debt collectors for people you don't know (or only know in passing) to go way up.
....and if it worked on spam too.
You have to use capital letters if you want to be heard.