Do you mean the current list (that you have to phone and write to in order to get placed on, every two years, or you're automatically removed), that telemarketing companies ignore, or do you mean the new one 50+ million people have signed up for that the industry is now so eager to "honor" that they're suing it out of existence?
I was referring to the Direct Marketing Association's Do Not Call list which is honored by members of that association. Most companies that are not DMA members do not use this list (although I think they could buy it if they wanted). The reason that the industry does not want to honor the federal DNC list is for the various free speech concerns I have repeatedly cited above.
We need to quit name-calling. Because I dislike telemarketing calls does not make me an "activist type." All these "attacking the person" arguments are pointless and aren't getting us anywhere.
Perhaps you are not an "activist" but there are many (particularly around universities) who are just desperate to find a cause. These folks are often quick to protest before they have taken the time to read about and understand the issue at hand. Anyway, I was trying not to reduce this to a name-calling type argument - with limited success. I will try to refrain in the future.
Loopholes - Companies love to seriously stretch the definition of "previous established business relationship". Phone companies (heh) frequently make it part of their "terms of service" agreements (that you cannot negotiate, and must accept as-is even to get a dial tone) that they can "share" information about you with "partners" (anybody with an advertising budget can be a "partner) "as law permits". Even if you write to expressly forbid them from distributing your phone number or mailing address (or other personal information), they'll still do it if the law lets them. Questionably a good thing for the credit reporting bureaus, but rarely "good" for consumers.
Others bury permission to solicit you directly by phone or in person (or to sell your contact information to others so they can do the same) in the fine print when you sign up for something free or otherwise (it's not always just the "you get what you pay for" things foolish folks sign up for in shopping malls). I have no control whatsoever over how many damned "mortgage insurance" companies my mortgage servicers (heh; took two mortgages to get this new house) have sold my contact information to. I've asked them to stop, in writing and on the phone, but I'm still getting at least one "protect your family!" mortgage insurance pitches per week or more.
Companies see absolutely no problems whatsoever selling contact and marketing demographic information to anybody willing to pay for it, regardless of the express wishes of the people that information pertains to. I call it unethical, and methinks it should be illegal, but alas, it happens all the time.
All this is done under the guise of a "previous business relationship." After all, you signed a little slip of paper to enter that contest for the free car, right? Didn't you notice the fine print saying "we can call you to sell you timeshare crap day and night"? Whoops; that's what we were hoping you'd miss.
This is a separate but related issue. Personal privacy is important and should be protected. However, the issue at hand is, should you have the right to decide who can call you at home? The answer is, no. If you subscribe to telephone service then you are implying that you want to contact an be contacted by others. This is no infringement on your "right to be left alone" because if you don't want to be contacted you can get rid of your ohone. Phone service is a privilege you pay for, not a right.
In a nutshell, you can never determine accurately who has called you, or from where. This makes a critical part of any legal action, identifying the person or company to write or sue, incredibly difficult. You have nothing but what the caller says to go o
Absolutely not. There's no call at all to throw such an obstacle into someone's exercise of the basic right to be left alone.
I'm not sure that you have the right to be left alone. Even if you did you would most certainly forfeit that right when you signed up for a telecommunications system that allows other people to contact you at any time.
Then they can choose to not put their name on the list, if they want to buy products and services over the phone.
Assume that there is an individual that occasionally makes purchases over the phone. Now assume that a fraudulent telemarketer, in violation of the current rules repeatedly calls a person with a fraudulent proposition. The called party is likely to put their name on a Do Not Call List out of frustration, deciding that the protection from fraud provided by the DNc list outweighs the benefit they had from making some purchases over the phone. I guess the legitimate seller is out of luck right?
The DNC list is a bad idea because there are many such situations that could arise. If we simply enforced the laws that protect citizens from harassment and fraud then the telemarketing problem would go away.
But this isn't enough for some activist types. They feel that they are so important that they can decide who gets to call them on a public phone network. Even if a telemarketing call is legit they freak out because they do not like the idea. To those people I say (at the risk of sounding like I am connected to the telemarketing industry), this is a legitimate form of marketing.
If it bothers you that much, and you are unwilling make one phone call to an industry association to have your name placed on the industry's DNC list, then yuo can rid yourself of the problem by getting rid of your phone service.
I can only conclude that the reason that you are opposed to making it easier for people to exercise their right to be left alone is that you work in the industry, or for a company that obtains business via telemarketing, or that you somehow profit from the practice. (Your use of the oxymoronic phrase "legitimate telemarketers" makes a strong case against you.)
That's foolish. Your problem is that you have such a strong objection to this activity that it prevents you from thinking objectively. If I step back look at the issue and then argue that in some cases telemarketing is legitimate yuor fanatical mind figures that I must be connected to the industry. This is not so.
The current rules are just about impossible to enforce effectively. Oh, and how can you call for enforcement of the current rules yet claim Constitutional concerns about Federal authority to regulate the telemarketing industry?
The current telemarketing rules do not infringe on the freedom of speech. The rules against fraudulent business parctice are legitimate. So are the laws against harassment. I am suggesting that we attempt to enforce these laws before we stomp all over our constitutional rights.
You come off not as interested in anyone's rights, but rather in ensuring that telemarketers have a means to badger the weak-willed. Too bad, tough luck, being connected with a scumbag industry was sure to take its karmic toll eventually.
Again with your silly assumptions about my connection to the telemarketing industry. I think that you need to step back and try to-I know this is hard for you- think logically and objectively about the issue.
Where do you come up with this loony idea that they have a right to call me?
You both subscribe to the came communications system (the Publicly Switched Telephone Network). You pay for the ability to contact other users of the system (and consequently for them to contact you). Therefore, as subscribers to this service you have the ability, and every right, to contact each other.
Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)
Censorship, regardless of how it is applied is not at all beneficial. The problem with restricting the freedom of expression is that people will still think about and engage in the activites that have been censored. Anti-semitic literature, scat porn, racist propaganda, excessively violent films should not be censored. People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.
By being open about such things it becomes much easier to see how stupid/ridiculous racism and anti-semitism are. It is obvious that scat porn is pretty damn sick. If these activities are not openly discussed an aura of mystery develops around them making them more attractive to impressionable people. (not that very many people will be attracted to bestiality for "the mystery" of it but there will undoubtedly be some...)
I think it is obvious that it is the parent's job to protect and educate their children. It is better to openly and honestly discuss issues rather than hide them away. The world can be a very bad place. We cannot change this by silencing the more perverse members of society.
They are engaging in commercial speech. Commercial speech is subject to any number of restrictions. One of the common and reasonable restrictions -- already applicable to postal mail and faxes, becoming increasingly applicable to email, and highly likely to very quickly become applicable to cell-phone calls -- is that the costs must be born by the commercial entity: ie. they can't send you postage-owing mail, use your fax paper, eat up your monthly data allocation, spend your telephone dollar for you.
I will have to go ahead and disagree with you about how reasonable this is. You pay to communicate either on your cell or on a landline. People have the right to call you just as much as you have the right to call them. The fact that you pay by the minute for your cell phone is hardly the problem of telemarketers. If you don't like paying by the minute for your cell service then refuse to do so. Take some responsibility for yourself and what you buy. Given the state of wireless tchnology penetration, it is ridiculous to accept pay by the minute plans. Demand flat rate plans or refuse to use cell service.
Commercial speech restrictions are reasonable and necessary, and telemarketers will very quickly find that out with the very first lawsuit. Precedence has been set in other marketing media, and will be set in this one.
They are neither reasonable nor necessary. People are to bitchy, whiney, pathetic to stand up for themselves so they feel the need for "government protection" which amounts to a restriction of their freedom. If you don't like telemarketing calls, tell the bastards to stop calling you. If this fails, they are breaking the current laws and you can prosecute them.
There's no need to individually contact each and every person, when a sign or a list can do the job adequately. That's putting a pointless burden on my exercise of my right to be left alone. ("I told your church I didn't want any more evanglists to visit!" "Well, you didn't tell *me*, specifically. So let me tell you about the Great God Pan...")
But the problem is that the burden needs to be on the individual. As much as you dislike telemarketing you must admit that some people buy products and services over the phone. These people are potential customers for legitimate telemarketers. Now, suppose that these customers are repeatedly contacted by fraudulent scamster telemarketers. Those individuals would be likely to put themselves on the DNC list despite the fact that they may occasionally buy products over the phone from more reputable companies.
I understand that many people do not want to be called at all. Reputable companies will respect the wishes of those people with voluntary company (or industry) specific lists. The irreputable/fraudulent companies who ignore customer's requests to not be called are already breaking the current laws concerning fraudulent business practices and harassment. The solution is to enforce our current laws rather than to enact a heavy-handed policy which restricts legitimate commerce.
And if a city can do it with stomping on free speech, then so can the Feds.
I question the constitutionality of the current laws concerning cities but I have no choice but to accept that they can enforce the law as it stands.
The only question would be whether the Feds have Constitutional authority, and the interstate commerce clause is sufficient (modulo the concerns I mention above).
Incorrect. In fact, many localities expressly prohibit solicitation at a home where such a sign is displayed
The laws would then, of course, only be restricted to such communities. Being looked upon favourably by the Supreme Court is not the same as being included in a Supreme Court decision. In general soliciting is acceptable and "no soliciting" signs hold no legal weight.
Incorrect. I can tell 'em all go to to hell, I don't have to listen to each one first. (See citations below.)
Also noteworthy is the Court's 1943 opinion in Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141: "A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant..." (With Google and FindLaw, anyone can look like a legal scholar...:-) )
In Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S.141 it is stated that," A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant..."
This is so. If you could individually contact each and every telemarketer and express your desire to not be called, and then the telemarketer were to call you in defiance of your will, then a city could punish them provided that they had such punitive power on the books.
Martin vs Struthers continues to say, "In any case the problem must be worked [319 U.S. 141, 149] out by each community for itself with due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it, as well as those who choose to exclude such distributers from the home."
The judge is saying that this problem should be solved by individual communities, keeping in mind the rights of the solicitors.
The problem is that the DNC list is blanket legislation, preventing all telemarketers from calling individuals on the list. It is enforced federally (which is unprecedented).
The reality is that many people think that they do not want to be contacted, but, in reality they do buy products over the phone. By removing the burden of contacting each telemarkter individually, the DNC list makes it very easy for individuals who respond to sales pitches to be cut off from those who want to sell them things. This is an unfair restriction of the rights of businesses to speak to their customers.
Nonsense. Only people to whom I have distributed my number have any right to call me, and only for the purposes for which I have given them that number.
Its sad that so many people think that this is the case. In reality, anyone who has a phone has the right to call you. Your number is published in the phonebook for this purpose. If your number is unlisted people still have the right to call you (they might find you through random dialling for example..)
Telephone misuse is a serious crime; in Maryland making "repeated calls with the intent to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass another" or a call with "a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" can lead to a three year jail term
But if many thousands of different telemarketers call you only once, it is not harassment. If one company calls you 10,000 on behalf of 10,000 clients, that is not harassment. Each company has the right to deliver their message to you once. That's just the way it is. Get used to it.
And with a "Do Not Call" registry, telemarketers have no more right to call me than a door-to-door salesman has to trespass on my property if I put up a "No Solicitors" sign
*sigh* It is well established that those "no solicitors" signs do not hold any legal weight and any solicitor is free to ignore them. The Do Not Call is currently in limbo precisely because it violates the freedom of speech.
Oh, please. I honestly have nothing to do with the telemarketing industry. I just don't like stupid people trying to restrict fundamental rights because its not convenient for
I am perfectly within my rights to tell individuals or organizations that they may NOT contact me via phone, cell or otherwise. If they persist after being notified, it qualifies as harassment.
That's right, if they persist. However every telemarketer has the right to call you once. If 20 million of them decide to call you in one day, that is not harassment.
How I decide to pay for MY service does not have anything whatsoever to do with my right to control access to MY equipment.
I hate to break it to you there sparky, but YOUR equipment (your phone and the wiring in your house) is useless without the service you are paying for. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what you are purchasing from the phone company. You are paying for access to a telecommunications network where you can contact other people and they can contact you. You do not have the right or the abiltiy to decide who can contact you. If you don't like it then you can stop paying for the service.
The only reasonable expectation that someone might call me is if I give the number to someone with the intent of having them call me.
The phone number to your landline is listed in your local directory for anyone to see. Even if nobody looks it up, or if you pay for unlisted service, there's always random dialling. I mean the expectation is that if you have a phone, you want people to be able to contact you.
Maybe you should read those terms of service in your phonebook or peruse your cellphone contract and see what your "rights" are...
Ah, but the problem is that people do not know what is good for them. 50 million angry telephone users are in fact wrong. If it is ok to violate the freedom of speech sometimes, in certain situations, when most people think its ok then why not violate other protected rights? I mean, if most people think its a good idea then why not, right? Hell, who needs protection from unlawful search and seizure? (if you want that kind of protection then you must be a terrorist, right?).
Creating laws to enforce the perceived norm is a bad idea because the perceived norm can quickly change while the law does not. Creating new legislation to usurp fundamental rights is just plain wrong....
I stand corrected. Not for long though as once Number portability is fully enabled this law will be irrelevant.
I still believe that people should just get over themselves and accept the telemarketing. Its a perfectly legal enterprise. Restricting people's rights to engage in commerce over the phone is just plain wrong....
And you would lose your case. You have decided that you want to pay by the minute for the use of your cell phone. By subscribing to a communications system, there is the reasonable expectation that people will try to call you. Telemarketers have just as much right to call you as everyone else does. The fact that you pay for your cell airtime is irrelevant to the matter.
Hmm, I'm a retard because I have some understanding of modern genetics? I'm not denying the evolutionary process. What I am saying is that the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin is interesting but, for the most part, incorrect.
Responding to ACs: a sure sign that I have nothing to do at work today.
So, if the idea that humans are descended from apes (or indeed that humans are just another ape family) is a bizarre, incorrect conclusio, what are humans descended from?
This is an example of the kinds of misperceptions I am talking about. I would suggest that you read a book or two (hell, even an article in a journal would suffice) on the subject and report your back your findings. It would be instructive for you and amusing for the rest of us.
About once a day, I answer the phone and nobody is there. I've fallen into a habit with these calls: "Hello? HELLO? I can't hear anyone," and hang up.
Why does this happen? I do not have a telezapper, so that's not the cause; why do the telemarketers (or stalkers, I suppose, since there's no caller ID either I don't know who they are...) not talk/hang up too soon?
I'm not sure that you will actually be reading this but, i will answer just in case. The reason that you will sometimes hear dead air when you answer the phone is that telemarketers use predictive diallers to call clients. These predictive systems estimate the number of calls that the company should make in order to keep their agents in the call center constantly busy.
The system makes the calls based on its estimates and then routes the calls to the available agents. The trouble is that the estimates are not exact and in some cases the system will call a number but there will be no agent available to take the call. This is known as call abandonment. The result is that when you answer your phone you hear dead air.
According to the FCC telemarketers are allowed to use predictive diallers provided that their abandonment rate does not exceed 3% of calls made. However, since this is difficult to enforce, some companies will increase the number of calls made resulting in a higher abandonment rate.
the first thing that occured to me when I saw this headline was "so f--ing what?". I am certainly not saying that the exploration of space and the science/efforts behind attempting to achieve it aren't anything short of fascinating, but that fact that China's doing something that was done over 30 years ago? Big deal. Or maybe I'm missing the significance? It wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure if I am, there will be no shortage of./'ers to tell me so.
Well, during the cold war the space program was really a demonstration of capability. If a state has the capabiltiy to put a person in orbit then it is inferred that they also have the capability to hit any country in the world with a missle carrying a good sized payload. This coupled with nuclear capability is a not-so-subtle "don't fuck with us" statement.
There has never been a more significant scientific publication
My physics teacher at school regarded it as the second most significant, after 'The Origin of Species'. I'm inclined to agree.
I disagree. While Darwin's work is undoubtedly significant it had more of a social impact than a scientific one. The publication of the Origin helped usher in the modern period; forcing people to re-evaluate their relationship with god and nature. Its effect on religion, social science, and even literature (particularly early science fiction) should not be underestimated.
However, as a scientific publication it pales in comparison to Principia Mathematica. The Origin was really a collection of good observations coupled with interesting (but flawed)hypotheses. The lasting effect of the Origin on the scientific community has largely been negative. People who have no concept of modern genetics will read a few chapters and come to all sorts of bizarre, incorrect conclusions (people are descendants of apes, biological determinism and so on..). This leads to the publication of books based on these conclusions ( see "The Giraffe's Neck" by Francis Hitching).
On the other hand Newton's work has ahd a profound, lasting and positive effect on science. For hundreds of years, his Newtonian mechanics were the only way to understand the physical universe. Even after his gravitational theory has been displaced by relativity and quantum theory, newtonian mechanics are still a useful tool taught to any grade school student.
No, I didn't say that. What I did mean, though, was that I get quite annoyed with people who apparently find no redeeming quality in something, and yet they force themselves to endure it just so they can vent about it later.
Agreed, that is stupid behavior. You should have said that if that's what you meant.
Amusing analogy, but not really accurate. You're trying to say "I think this movie sucks, and anyone that likes it is disturbed or otherwise mistaken in some way.".
I never once gave my opinion of the movie. You were arguing that the movie is good because some people like it. I was simply pointing out that something (having your balls crushed) can still suck even though some (freak) people enjoy it.
But I'm very much in favor of you having the right to your opinion, I don't think you're a freak. If you love the movie then it shouldn't really matter what other people think about it one way or the other...
You know, if you don't like it, you could just...Not watch the movie. Or if you really can't stop yourself from writing a bad review, at least post it somewhere appropriate.
You mean this discussion of the Matrix series on slashdot is an inappropriate venue to express one's opinions on th emovie?
It made a $281,048,966 US box office total, and over $700 million worldwide so far...Apparently, even if it is "a pretty piece of eye candy", as you say...Some people seem to enjoy candy.
Some people enjoy having women in high heels stomp on their balls. That doesn't mean that its a good thing...
"...a massive computer mixup is NOT a disaster on the scale of WTC or some other event causing major casualties."
Others, myself included, noted that a "massive computer mixup" could in fact be disastrous (Air trafic control systems, stock market etc)
You also said, "I just get annoyed when I hear a computer attack referred to as an effective terrorist strategy."
We were simply pointing out that attacking computer networks could be an effective strategy, not necessarily in this case, but in general. In conclusion then, you are wrong and we are right. Let's move on...
realize that perhaps, to many of you, computers and the Internet is Life Itself. However, a massive computer mixup is NOT a disaster on the scale of WTC or some other event causing major casualties.
I just get annoyed when I hear a computer attack referred to as an effective terrorist strategy. I certainly could survive if my computer didn't turn on today; no terror here, just kind of disappointment. Perhaps something like this could be called a "bummer. oh well" attack.
Nobody really cares if you can turn your computer on. However, a carefully planned attack on financial institutions/networks, military networks and other government systems could be quite effective. This is why said institutions are fanatical about security (or at least they should be).
This type of communication (not all talking is "speech") more closely approximates harrassment then freedom of expression.
No. All talking is, in fact, speech. You should not try to redefine what constitutes speech because you do not want to be annoyed. You do not have the right to not be annoyed.
However, you do have the right to be annoyed and say so. If you don't like telemarketing then you should complain to every telemarketer who calls you and, most importantly, do not buy their products. If everyone did this the problem would solve itself.
For example, one could claim that a good old boy constantly making sexual suggestions to a secretary is "free speech". However, if the conduct is unsolicited unwanted, and explicitely asked to stop, you've interfered with the right of your unwilling audience.
If the conduct is unsolicited and unwanted, and the perpetrator (sp?) is specificly asked to stop, then it is harassment. If you ask a company to stop calling you then the current laws say that they must. Generally telemarketers do follow this rule. However, because a telemarketer represents possibly thousands of companies they have every right to call you back while representing different clients. Those clients have a right to call you until you tell them not to. The reason the DNC list should be illegal is that it infringes on indiviual company's rights to contact you once.
My telephone is NOT public property, and If I tell you that you cannot contact me, you cannot. Period.
Nope. This is how you want the phone system to work. Here in reality, if you pay for access to the phone system you are paying for the ability to contact and be contacted by all other users of the system..
Slashdot Mirror
Feh, they'll come around. The current decisions will never stand up to the scrutiny they are under.
Do you mean the current list (that you have to phone and write to in order to get placed on, every two years, or you're automatically removed), that telemarketing companies ignore, or do you mean the new one 50+ million people have signed up for that the industry is now so eager to "honor" that they're suing it out of existence?
I was referring to the Direct Marketing Association's Do Not Call list which is honored by members of that association. Most companies that are not DMA members do not use this list (although I think they could buy it if they wanted). The reason that the industry does not want to honor the federal DNC list is for the various free speech concerns I have repeatedly cited above.
We need to quit name-calling. Because I dislike telemarketing calls does not make me an "activist type." All these "attacking the person" arguments are pointless and aren't getting us anywhere.
Perhaps you are not an "activist" but there are many (particularly around universities) who are just desperate to find a cause. These folks are often quick to protest before they have taken the time to read about and understand the issue at hand. Anyway, I was trying not to reduce this to a name-calling type argument - with limited success. I will try to refrain in the future.
Loopholes - Companies love to seriously stretch the definition of "previous established business relationship". Phone companies (heh) frequently make it part of their "terms of service" agreements (that you cannot negotiate, and must accept as-is even to get a dial tone) that they can "share" information about you with "partners" (anybody with an advertising budget can be a "partner) "as law permits". Even if you write to expressly forbid them from distributing your phone number or mailing address (or other personal information), they'll still do it if the law lets them. Questionably a good thing for the credit reporting bureaus, but rarely "good" for consumers.
Others bury permission to solicit you directly by phone or in person (or to sell your contact information to others so they can do the same) in the fine print when you sign up for something free or otherwise (it's not always just the "you get what you pay for" things foolish folks sign up for in shopping malls). I have no control whatsoever over how many damned "mortgage insurance" companies my mortgage servicers (heh; took two mortgages to get this new house) have sold my contact information to. I've asked them to stop, in writing and on the phone, but I'm still getting at least one "protect your family!" mortgage insurance pitches per week or more.
Companies see absolutely no problems whatsoever selling contact and marketing demographic information to anybody willing to pay for it, regardless of the express wishes of the people that information pertains to. I call it unethical, and methinks it should be illegal, but alas, it happens all the time. All this is done under the guise of a "previous business relationship." After all, you signed a little slip of paper to enter that contest for the free car, right? Didn't you notice the fine print saying "we can call you to sell you timeshare crap day and night"? Whoops; that's what we were hoping you'd miss.
This is a separate but related issue. Personal privacy is important and should be protected. However, the issue at hand is, should you have the right to decide who can call you at home? The answer is, no. If you subscribe to telephone service then you are implying that you want to contact an be contacted by others. This is no infringement on your "right to be left alone" because if you don't want to be contacted you can get rid of your ohone. Phone service is a privilege you pay for, not a right.
In a nutshell, you can never determine accurately who has called you, or from where. This makes a critical part of any legal action, identifying the person or company to write or sue, incredibly difficult. You have nothing but what the caller says to go o
Absolutely not. There's no call at all to throw such an obstacle into someone's exercise of the basic right to be left alone.
I'm not sure that you have the right to be left alone. Even if you did you would most certainly forfeit that right when you signed up for a telecommunications system that allows other people to contact you at any time.
Then they can choose to not put their name on the list, if they want to buy products and services over the phone.
Assume that there is an individual that occasionally makes purchases over the phone. Now assume that a fraudulent telemarketer, in violation of the current rules repeatedly calls a person with a fraudulent proposition. The called party is likely to put their name on a Do Not Call List out of frustration, deciding that the protection from fraud provided by the DNc list outweighs the benefit they had from making some purchases over the phone. I guess the legitimate seller is out of luck right?
The DNC list is a bad idea because there are many such situations that could arise. If we simply enforced the laws that protect citizens from harassment and fraud then the telemarketing problem would go away.
But this isn't enough for some activist types. They feel that they are so important that they can decide who gets to call them on a public phone network. Even if a telemarketing call is legit they freak out because they do not like the idea. To those people I say (at the risk of sounding like I am connected to the telemarketing industry), this is a legitimate form of marketing.
If it bothers you that much, and you are unwilling make one phone call to an industry association to have your name placed on the industry's DNC list, then yuo can rid yourself of the problem by getting rid of your phone service.
I can only conclude that the reason that you are opposed to making it easier for people to exercise their right to be left alone is that you work in the industry, or for a company that obtains business via telemarketing, or that you somehow profit from the practice. (Your use of the oxymoronic phrase "legitimate telemarketers" makes a strong case against you.)
That's foolish. Your problem is that you have such a strong objection to this activity that it prevents you from thinking objectively. If I step back look at the issue and then argue that in some cases telemarketing is legitimate yuor fanatical mind figures that I must be connected to the industry. This is not so.
The current rules are just about impossible to enforce effectively. Oh, and how can you call for enforcement of the current rules yet claim Constitutional concerns about Federal authority to regulate the telemarketing industry?
The current telemarketing rules do not infringe on the freedom of speech. The rules against fraudulent business parctice are legitimate. So are the laws against harassment. I am suggesting that we attempt to enforce these laws before we stomp all over our constitutional rights.
You come off not as interested in anyone's rights, but rather in ensuring that telemarketers have a means to badger the weak-willed. Too bad, tough luck, being connected with a scumbag industry was sure to take its karmic toll eventually.
Again with your silly assumptions about my connection to the telemarketing industry. I think that you need to step back and try to-I know this is hard for you- think logically and objectively about the issue.
Where do you come up with this loony idea that they have a right to call me?
You both subscribe to the came communications system (the Publicly Switched Telephone Network). You pay for the ability to contact other users of the system (and consequently for them to contact you). Therefore, as subscribers to this service you have the ability, and every right, to contact each other.
Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)
Censorship, regardless of how it is applied is not at all beneficial. The problem with restricting the freedom of expression is that people will still think about and engage in the activites that have been censored. Anti-semitic literature, scat porn, racist propaganda, excessively violent films should not be censored. People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.
By being open about such things it becomes much easier to see how stupid/ridiculous racism and anti-semitism are. It is obvious that scat porn is pretty damn sick. If these activities are not openly discussed an aura of mystery develops around them making them more attractive to impressionable people. (not that very many people will be attracted to bestiality for "the mystery" of it but there will undoubtedly be some...)
I think it is obvious that it is the parent's job to protect and educate their children. It is better to openly and honestly discuss issues rather than hide them away. The world can be a very bad place. We cannot change this by silencing the more perverse members of society.
They are engaging in commercial speech. Commercial speech is subject to any number of restrictions. One of the common and reasonable restrictions -- already applicable to postal mail and faxes, becoming increasingly applicable to email, and highly likely to very quickly become applicable to cell-phone calls -- is that the costs must be born by the commercial entity: ie. they can't send you postage-owing mail, use your fax paper, eat up your monthly data allocation, spend your telephone dollar for you.
I will have to go ahead and disagree with you about how reasonable this is. You pay to communicate either on your cell or on a landline. People have the right to call you just as much as you have the right to call them. The fact that you pay by the minute for your cell phone is hardly the problem of telemarketers. If you don't like paying by the minute for your cell service then refuse to do so. Take some responsibility for yourself and what you buy. Given the state of wireless tchnology penetration, it is ridiculous to accept pay by the minute plans. Demand flat rate plans or refuse to use cell service.
Commercial speech restrictions are reasonable and necessary, and telemarketers will very quickly find that out with the very first lawsuit. Precedence has been set in other marketing media, and will be set in this one.
They are neither reasonable nor necessary. People are to bitchy, whiney, pathetic to stand up for themselves so they feel the need for "government protection" which amounts to a restriction of their freedom. If you don't like telemarketing calls, tell the bastards to stop calling you. If this fails, they are breaking the current laws and you can prosecute them.
There's no need to individually contact each and every person, when a sign or a list can do the job adequately. That's putting a pointless burden on my exercise of my right to be left alone. ("I told your church I didn't want any more evanglists to visit!" "Well, you didn't tell *me*, specifically. So let me tell you about the Great God Pan...")
But the problem is that the burden needs to be on the individual. As much as you dislike telemarketing you must admit that some people buy products and services over the phone. These people are potential customers for legitimate telemarketers. Now, suppose that these customers are repeatedly contacted by fraudulent scamster telemarketers. Those individuals would be likely to put themselves on the DNC list despite the fact that they may occasionally buy products over the phone from more reputable companies.
I understand that many people do not want to be called at all. Reputable companies will respect the wishes of those people with voluntary company (or industry) specific lists. The irreputable/fraudulent companies who ignore customer's requests to not be called are already breaking the current laws concerning fraudulent business practices and harassment. The solution is to enforce our current laws rather than to enact a heavy-handed policy which restricts legitimate commerce.
And if a city can do it with stomping on free speech, then so can the Feds.
I question the constitutionality of the current laws concerning cities but I have no choice but to accept that they can enforce the law as it stands.
The only question would be whether the Feds have Constitutional authority, and the interstate commerce clause is sufficient (modulo the concerns I mention above).
And those are serious concerns...
Incorrect. In fact, many localities expressly prohibit solicitation at a home where such a sign is displayed
:-) )
The laws would then, of course, only be restricted to such communities. Being looked upon favourably by the Supreme Court is not the same as being included in a Supreme Court decision. In general soliciting is acceptable and "no soliciting" signs hold no legal weight.
Incorrect. I can tell 'em all go to to hell, I don't have to listen to each one first. (See citations below.)
Also noteworthy is the Court's 1943 opinion in Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141: "A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant..." (With Google and FindLaw, anyone can look like a legal scholar...
In Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S.141 it is stated that," A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant..."
This is so. If you could individually contact each and every telemarketer and express your desire to not be called, and then the telemarketer were to call you in defiance of your will, then a city could punish them provided that they had such punitive power on the books.
Martin vs Struthers continues to say, "In any case the problem must be worked [319 U.S. 141, 149] out by each community for itself with due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it, as well as those who choose to exclude such distributers from the home."
The judge is saying that this problem should be solved by individual communities, keeping in mind the rights of the solicitors.
The problem is that the DNC list is blanket legislation, preventing all telemarketers from calling individuals on the list. It is enforced federally (which is unprecedented).
The reality is that many people think that they do not want to be contacted, but, in reality they do buy products over the phone. By removing the burden of contacting each telemarkter individually, the DNC list makes it very easy for individuals who respond to sales pitches to be cut off from those who want to sell them things. This is an unfair restriction of the rights of businesses to speak to their customers.
Nonsense. Only people to whom I have distributed my number have any right to call me, and only for the purposes for which I have given them that number.
Its sad that so many people think that this is the case. In reality, anyone who has a phone has the right to call you. Your number is published in the phonebook for this purpose. If your number is unlisted people still have the right to call you (they might find you through random dialling for example..)
Telephone misuse is a serious crime; in Maryland making "repeated calls with the intent to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass another" or a call with "a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" can lead to a three year jail term
But if many thousands of different telemarketers call you only once, it is not harassment. If one company calls you 10,000 on behalf of 10,000 clients, that is not harassment. Each company has the right to deliver their message to you once. That's just the way it is. Get used to it.
And with a "Do Not Call" registry, telemarketers have no more right to call me than a door-to-door salesman has to trespass on my property if I put up a "No Solicitors" sign
*sigh* It is well established that those "no solicitors" signs do not hold any legal weight and any solicitor is free to ignore them. The Do Not Call is currently in limbo precisely because it violates the freedom of speech.
Wrong, and spoken like a true telemarketer.
Oh, please. I honestly have nothing to do with the telemarketing industry. I just don't like stupid people trying to restrict fundamental rights because its not convenient for
I am perfectly within my rights to tell individuals or organizations that they may NOT contact me via phone, cell or otherwise. If they persist after being notified, it qualifies as harassment.
That's right, if they persist. However every telemarketer has the right to call you once. If 20 million of them decide to call you in one day, that is not harassment.
How I decide to pay for MY service does not have anything whatsoever to do with my right to control access to MY equipment.
I hate to break it to you there sparky, but YOUR equipment (your phone and the wiring in your house) is useless without the service you are paying for. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what you are purchasing from the phone company. You are paying for access to a telecommunications network where you can contact other people and they can contact you. You do not have the right or the abiltiy to decide who can contact you. If you don't like it then you can stop paying for the service.
The only reasonable expectation that someone might call me is if I give the number to someone with the intent of having them call me.
The phone number to your landline is listed in your local directory for anyone to see. Even if nobody looks it up, or if you pay for unlisted service, there's always random dialling. I mean the expectation is that if you have a phone, you want people to be able to contact you.
Maybe you should read those terms of service in your phonebook or peruse your cellphone contract and see what your "rights" are...
Ah, but the problem is that people do not know what is good for them. 50 million angry telephone users are in fact wrong. If it is ok to violate the freedom of speech sometimes, in certain situations, when most people think its ok then why not violate other protected rights? I mean, if most people think its a good idea then why not, right? Hell, who needs protection from unlawful search and seizure? (if you want that kind of protection then you must be a terrorist, right?).
Creating laws to enforce the perceived norm is a bad idea because the perceived norm can quickly change while the law does not. Creating new legislation to usurp fundamental rights is just plain wrong....
I stand corrected. Not for long though as once Number portability is fully enabled this law will be irrelevant.
I still believe that people should just get over themselves and accept the telemarketing. Its a perfectly legal enterprise. Restricting people's rights to engage in commerce over the phone is just plain wrong....
And you would lose your case. You have decided that you want to pay by the minute for the use of your cell phone. By subscribing to a communications system, there is the reasonable expectation that people will try to call you. Telemarketers have just as much right to call you as everyone else does. The fact that you pay for your cell airtime is irrelevant to the matter.
Hmm, I'm a retard because I have some understanding of modern genetics? I'm not denying the evolutionary process. What I am saying is that the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin is interesting but, for the most part, incorrect.
Responding to ACs: a sure sign that I have nothing to do at work today.
So, if the idea that humans are descended from apes (or indeed that humans are just another ape family) is a bizarre, incorrect conclusio, what are humans descended from?
This is an example of the kinds of misperceptions I am talking about. I would suggest that you read a book or two (hell, even an article in a journal would suffice) on the subject and report your back your findings. It would be instructive for you and amusing for the rest of us.
About once a day, I answer the phone and nobody is there. I've fallen into a habit with these calls: "Hello? HELLO? I can't hear anyone," and hang up. Why does this happen? I do not have a telezapper, so that's not the cause; why do the telemarketers (or stalkers, I suppose, since there's no caller ID either I don't know who they are...) not talk/hang up too soon?
I'm not sure that you will actually be reading this but, i will answer just in case. The reason that you will sometimes hear dead air when you answer the phone is that telemarketers use predictive diallers to call clients. These predictive systems estimate the number of calls that the company should make in order to keep their agents in the call center constantly busy.
The system makes the calls based on its estimates and then routes the calls to the available agents. The trouble is that the estimates are not exact and in some cases the system will call a number but there will be no agent available to take the call. This is known as call abandonment. The result is that when you answer your phone you hear dead air.
According to the FCC telemarketers are allowed to use predictive diallers provided that their abandonment rate does not exceed 3% of calls made. However, since this is difficult to enforce, some companies will increase the number of calls made resulting in a higher abandonment rate.
the first thing that occured to me when I saw this headline was "so f--ing what?". I am certainly not saying that the exploration of space and the science/efforts behind attempting to achieve it aren't anything short of fascinating, but that fact that China's doing something that was done over 30 years ago? Big deal. Or maybe I'm missing the significance? It wouldn't be the first time and I'm sure if I am, there will be no shortage of ./'ers to tell me so.
Well, during the cold war the space program was really a demonstration of capability. If a state has the capabiltiy to put a person in orbit then it is inferred that they also have the capability to hit any country in the world with a missle carrying a good sized payload. This coupled with nuclear capability is a not-so-subtle "don't fuck with us" statement.
Principia Mathematica.
There has never been a more significant scientific publication
My physics teacher at school regarded it as the second most significant, after 'The Origin of Species'. I'm inclined to agree.
I disagree. While Darwin's work is undoubtedly significant it had more of a social impact than a scientific one. The publication of the Origin helped usher in the modern period; forcing people to re-evaluate their relationship with god and nature. Its effect on religion, social science, and even literature (particularly early science fiction) should not be underestimated.
However, as a scientific publication it pales in comparison to Principia Mathematica. The Origin was really a collection of good observations coupled with interesting (but flawed)hypotheses. The lasting effect of the Origin on the scientific community has largely been negative. People who have no concept of modern genetics will read a few chapters and come to all sorts of bizarre, incorrect conclusions (people are descendants of apes, biological determinism and so on..). This leads to the publication of books based on these conclusions ( see "The Giraffe's Neck" by Francis Hitching).
On the other hand Newton's work has ahd a profound, lasting and positive effect on science. For hundreds of years, his Newtonian mechanics were the only way to understand the physical universe. Even after his gravitational theory has been displaced by relativity and quantum theory, newtonian mechanics are still a useful tool taught to any grade school student.
No, I didn't say that. What I did mean, though, was that I get quite annoyed with people who apparently find no redeeming quality in something, and yet they force themselves to endure it just so they can vent about it later.
Agreed, that is stupid behavior. You should have said that if that's what you meant.
Amusing analogy, but not really accurate. You're trying to say "I think this movie sucks, and anyone that likes it is disturbed or otherwise mistaken in some way.".
I never once gave my opinion of the movie. You were arguing that the movie is good because some people like it. I was simply pointing out that something (having your balls crushed) can still suck even though some (freak) people enjoy it.
But I'm very much in favor of you having the right to your opinion, I don't think you're a freak. If you love the movie then it shouldn't really matter what other people think about it one way or the other...
You know, if you don't like it, you could just...Not watch the movie. Or if you really can't stop yourself from writing a bad review, at least post it somewhere appropriate.
You mean this discussion of the Matrix series on slashdot is an inappropriate venue to express one's opinions on th emovie?
It made a $281,048,966 US box office total, and over $700 million worldwide so far...Apparently, even if it is "a pretty piece of eye candy", as you say...Some people seem to enjoy candy.
Some people enjoy having women in high heels stomp on their balls. That doesn't mean that its a good thing...
Well, just to clarify, you said:
"...a massive computer mixup is NOT a disaster on the scale of WTC or some other event causing major casualties."
Others, myself included, noted that a "massive computer mixup" could in fact be disastrous (Air trafic control systems, stock market etc)
You also said, "I just get annoyed when I hear a computer attack referred to as an effective terrorist strategy."
We were simply pointing out that attacking computer networks could be an effective strategy, not necessarily in this case, but in general. In conclusion then, you are wrong and we are right. Let's move on...
realize that perhaps, to many of you, computers and the Internet is Life Itself. However, a massive computer mixup is NOT a disaster on the scale of WTC or some other event causing major casualties. I just get annoyed when I hear a computer attack referred to as an effective terrorist strategy. I certainly could survive if my computer didn't turn on today; no terror here, just kind of disappointment. Perhaps something like this could be called a "bummer. oh well" attack.
Nobody really cares if you can turn your computer on. However, a carefully planned attack on financial institutions/networks, military networks and other government systems could be quite effective. This is why said institutions are fanatical about security (or at least they should be).
This type of communication (not all talking is "speech") more closely approximates harrassment then freedom of expression.
No. All talking is, in fact, speech. You should not try to redefine what constitutes speech because you do not want to be annoyed. You do not have the right to not be annoyed.
However, you do have the right to be annoyed and say so. If you don't like telemarketing then you should complain to every telemarketer who calls you and, most importantly, do not buy their products. If everyone did this the problem would solve itself.
For example, one could claim that a good old boy constantly making sexual suggestions to a secretary is "free speech". However, if the conduct is unsolicited unwanted, and explicitely asked to stop, you've interfered with the right of your unwilling audience.
If the conduct is unsolicited and unwanted, and the perpetrator (sp?) is specificly asked to stop, then it is harassment. If you ask a company to stop calling you then the current laws say that they must. Generally telemarketers do follow this rule. However, because a telemarketer represents possibly thousands of companies they have every right to call you back while representing different clients. Those clients have a right to call you until you tell them not to. The reason the DNC list should be illegal is that it infringes on indiviual company's rights to contact you once.
My telephone is NOT public property, and If I tell you that you cannot contact me, you cannot. Period.
Nope. This is how you want the phone system to work. Here in reality, if you pay for access to the phone system you are paying for the ability to contact and be contacted by all other users of the system..