The problem is consumers not demanding that service providers (the health workers) guarantee that their information not be handled in such a way, and then not filing suit when the guarantee is broken.
It has nothing to do with privacy or anything else, if consumers want it they should demand it and hold providers to their agreements.
It didn't say there was no cancellation, it said it might cause problems. Since no cancellation is perfect, I wouldn't be surprised if some users have trouble, even if you don't.
This isn't a case where a company is a monopoly because it happens to make a good product that others can't also make, it's a case where the government dictates that others can't make the product.
Seriously, you should come check out the zip drive use at my university.
Here every new computer purchased for the computer labs comes with a zip drive, and students use them all the time.
I hate the little things myself; zip disks beat out many better products with higher capacity, cheaper media, and generally better performance.
But to say they failed is just completely opposite to what I and many others here have experienced. In particular the fact that they're still being made after so many years should indicate that they did not fail. Look at the various competing products and notice how many of those are no longer around, and consider what that says about the zip drives.
I should have said "if the Floridians are out of jurisdiction...", as my intention was to say the poster was wrong in his charge of constitutional violation.
Yes, and if you take that average all the way back to the stoneage, time spent inside of an outage is probably twenty nines (note hyperbole).
Normally in my experience this uptime is measured on a yearly basis.
But that's all secondary. The point is that if people want guaranteed, super reliable power they should demand it and let market forces bring it (or not). But bitching to the government is surely not the correct means to the end.
Basically there is a seperation between what the govt says is legal and what people want to happen. Just because it is legal and not banned does not mean everyone wants it, and just because something is illegal and banend does not mean that nobody would want it.
There is also a seperation between what the people want to happen and what should happen. Just because people want something to happen doesn't mean it is right.
Basically with a sign like in my example saying no, you say that is ok because it says no. But without a sign (an unknown, just like everyone on a phone) you should assume yes?
Correct, because a person who has subscribed to a system in which they accept incoming calls from any stranger has chosen to accept those calls. They have agreed that it is ok for you to call them, and so you should assume yes.
Again, I dont understand this comment either. I dont see how it would be similar to your examples at all.
This is about a group of people wanting to do something and being told that it is ok to do, so long as they don't do it to anyone on a list stored in Washington.
That group might as well be redheaded people wanting to access websites, and that list might as well be a list of websites they would not be allowed to access. Or substitute stores for websites.
I'm sure there are better ways even yet. Oh well, nothing is perfect.
The better way is for people to get smarter phones or not use phone services that allow telemarketers to contact them (through guarantees and contractual restrictions). This would be a heck of a lot more effective, more just to the telemarketers, and it would avoid setting the precident set by this type of law.
There's nothing wrong with fishing it out of the garbage, that's generally ruled to be private property, but the lack of a signature might have some merit...
Oh, I think people should be held responsible for stuff that their computers do even if they are up to date on all patches.
A computer can only do what its operator tells it to do. If a bad man on the internet takes control and uses it for a bad purpose, it's only because the operator has told it to allow him control.
What, you fear you have lousy software that will get you in trouble? You better start demanding a guarantee that the software won't hand control over to strangers.
And once companies are having to give these guarantees they just might finally put out software of decent quality. While they're fixing all of their security faults they just might fix stability fault while they're at it.
In the overzealous quest to get even with those spammers who, it would seem, dissed their collective mother, the slashdot crowd is demanding that a very dangerous precident be set.
There's really no difference between this law and one that prevents a class of people from accessing any publicly accessable webpage.
But seriously, people who buy electricity don't normally buy guaranteed uptime to go with it.
If people wanted five nines reliability on their electricity, they'd demand it and then pay the extra cost that went with providing such service.
Deregulation works; unfortunately it gives people what they want. In the case of electricity people generally express that the dependability of the current systems is good enough.
It is fundamentally unjust for anybody to have to go out of their way to insure that a person has not said no in regards to you specifically when they have said yes generally.
It would be no different from you having to check with Washington before entering every store you approach, or viewing every website you wish to view.
If you put a 'no soliciting' sign on your lawn it tells the visitor without him having to go out of his way to check. For this reason it is a completely different situation.
You're interfering with a service I've purchased (access to a bonafide email server), and because I have the right to free speech, and I want YOU to hear what I have to say.
This law doesn't have to do with email addresses or phone numbers. The analogy would be if I told you you weren't allowed to email me if you had my address (which I never go out of my way to hide anyway).
You know what? I purchased a service (phone service), too. I have the right to use it how I want, in accordance with FCC regulations.
You have the right to use it however you want. The problem is that the telemarketers also have the right to use it how they want.
I very much dispute this. *I* never made any such agreement.
Did you contract for phone service in which anybody with the service may call you? In other words, did you contract for standard phone service? If so you DID make the agreement.
I very much dispute this as well. My right to the privacy of my own home, if I request it, trumps this other so-called "right" in every conceivable way.
Right, and by agreeing that anyone else may call, you voluntarily give up that right.
A false analogy! A list in your desk is not publicized in a known location that can be easily accessed....so a law doing so is necessarily unconstitutional.
You assume that everyone who might want to call, that would be disallowed by this list, would know about the list and be able to access it. Neither of these is necessarily true.
This is in stark contrast to the normal analogy involving "keep out" signs on the lawn.
If someone trying to sell me something makes my phone ring by typing it's number onto their keypad, even when my name is on a telemarketer do-not-call list, they are hacking. They have hacked into my phone to make it ring. No matter that the password to make it ring (phone number) is published in the phone-book, they are specifically NOT authorized to make my phone, which is my property, ring.
And the worse analogy of the week award goes to... A55M0NKEY!!!
I mean seriously, this is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen about telemarketing. From flawed premises to an incredibly contrived conclusion, this comment is truely one for the record books.
Now excuse me, the power company is hacking into my computer (by sending power through its plug). I need to go secure a lawyer, though not through the mail, that would be hacking his mailbox.
Telemarketing is a form of harassment. It induces a state of distrust and even fear in what was created to be a means of strengthing the community, namely the ring of the phone.
But you invite them in by having a phone service that allows incoming calls from these people.
It is not the government's place to prevent citizens from bringing harassment upon themselves.
Free speech means you can say what you like, it doesn't mean I have to listen to it, nor does it mean you can come to my house and say it.
And nobody says you have to listen to the telemarketers. They have no guarantee of audience, and so this particular argument against a first amendment violation is nonsense.
In the end telephone users have to take responsibility for themselves. Demanding that telemarketers not call is precisely like demanding that no redheads access your public web site.
Unless that desire was expressed directly to the caller, he has ever right to make the phone call.
By contracting for phone service, one is agreeing to have anyone else call them. In order to make exceptions to this rule people must be told individually not to call.
Saying "I'm on the list in Washington and therefore you can't call" is like saying "I'm on a the list in my desk drawer and therefore you can't call." The only difference is that the first has the force of law, and so declaring it valid begs that the law is valid in the first place.
This doesn't abridge freedom of speech, it abridges the delegation of powers. There is no place for the federal government to be telling me who I can't call on my own phone, and so a law doing so is necessarily unconstitutional.
Note that if you tell me not to call, that is still enforcable by simple private property rights. But the feds have no place in that conversation.
Do I have to tell every one individually (most of whom have a problem identifying themselves unless you pretend to be interested in buying their crap) that I don't want them to call??
Yes, you do. Otherwise you're interfering with their right to do what they want with the service they've purchased.
It sucks when reality is against you, but the reality is that you subscribed to a service that works like this, and now you're complaining about it.
If you don't like it, don't pay for it.
If you insist on telling telemarketers what they can do with their phones, don't complain when I start telling you what you can do with your web browser.
But this law doesn't attack those who harrass by that definition.
It attacks everyone making that first call.
The law is a bad one, just defining another victimless crime and providing another example of Americans running to their government at the slightest annoyance.
Slashdot Mirror
The battle on spam must be fought on all available fronts,
Why?
The problem is consumers not demanding that service providers (the health workers) guarantee that their information not be handled in such a way, and then not filing suit when the guarantee is broken.
It has nothing to do with privacy or anything else, if consumers want it they should demand it and hold providers to their agreements.
More precisely, if they didn't have to spend the money trying to meet safety regulations there would be more power plants.
Whether or not these regulations make them safer is kind of beside the point, they have to pay either way.
Which isn't to say that the regulations don't make them safer...
I don't believe the review said this...
It didn't say there was no cancellation, it said it might cause problems. Since no cancellation is perfect, I wouldn't be surprised if some users have trouble, even if you don't.
you should emphasize artifical monopolies.
This isn't a case where a company is a monopoly because it happens to make a good product that others can't also make, it's a case where the government dictates that others can't make the product.
Seriously, you should come check out the zip drive use at my university.
Here every new computer purchased for the computer labs comes with a zip drive, and students use them all the time.
I hate the little things myself; zip disks beat out many better products with higher capacity, cheaper media, and generally better performance.
But to say they failed is just completely opposite to what I and many others here have experienced. In particular the fact that they're still being made after so many years should indicate that they did not fail. Look at the various competing products and notice how many of those are no longer around, and consider what that says about the zip drives.
Absolutely
My mistake, I should have been more clear.
I should have said "if the Floridians are out of jurisdiction...", as my intention was to say the poster was wrong in his charge of constitutional violation.
Yes, and if you take that average all the way back to the stoneage, time spent inside of an outage is probably twenty nines (note hyperbole).
Normally in my experience this uptime is measured on a yearly basis.
But that's all secondary. The point is that if people want guaranteed, super reliable power they should demand it and let market forces bring it (or not). But bitching to the government is surely not the correct means to the end.
Basically there is a seperation between what the govt says is legal and what people want to happen. Just because it is legal and not banned does not mean everyone wants it, and just because something is illegal and banend does not mean that nobody would want it.
There is also a seperation between what the people want to happen and what should happen. Just because people want something to happen doesn't mean it is right.
Basically with a sign like in my example saying no, you say that is ok because it says no. But without a sign (an unknown, just like everyone on a phone) you should assume yes?
Correct, because a person who has subscribed to a system in which they accept incoming calls from any stranger has chosen to accept those calls. They have agreed that it is ok for you to call them, and so you should assume yes.
Again, I dont understand this comment either.
I dont see how it would be similar to your examples at all.
This is about a group of people wanting to do something and being told that it is ok to do, so long as they don't do it to anyone on a list stored in Washington.
That group might as well be redheaded people wanting to access websites, and that list might as well be a list of websites they would not be allowed to access. Or substitute stores for websites.
I'm sure there are better ways even yet.
Oh well, nothing is perfect.
The better way is for people to get smarter phones or not use phone services that allow telemarketers to contact them (through guarantees and contractual restrictions). This would be a heck of a lot more effective, more just to the telemarketers, and it would avoid setting the precident set by this type of law.
There's nothing wrong with fishing it out of the garbage, that's generally ruled to be private property, but the lack of a signature might have some merit...
Oh, I think people should be held responsible for stuff that their computers do even if they are up to date on all patches.
A computer can only do what its operator tells it to do. If a bad man on the internet takes control and uses it for a bad purpose, it's only because the operator has told it to allow him control.
What, you fear you have lousy software that will get you in trouble? You better start demanding a guarantee that the software won't hand control over to strangers.
And once companies are having to give these guarantees they just might finally put out software of decent quality. While they're fixing all of their security faults they just might fix stability fault while they're at it.
Amen.
In the overzealous quest to get even with those spammers who, it would seem, dissed their collective mother, the slashdot crowd is demanding that a very dangerous precident be set.
There's really no difference between this law and one that prevents a class of people from accessing any publicly accessable webpage.
SMTP has the ability to generate an error after the receipt of the data.
Just throw a "resource unavailable". After all, the nospam policy makes the resource unavailable.
Just because the feds can regulate interstate commerce as well doesn't mean that the states can't.
The Floridians are out of the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts, but not because of restrictions on regulation of interstate commerce.
But seriously, people who buy electricity don't normally buy guaranteed uptime to go with it.
If people wanted five nines reliability on their electricity, they'd demand it and then pay the extra cost that went with providing such service.
Deregulation works; unfortunately it gives people what they want. In the case of electricity people generally express that the dependability of the current systems is good enough.
Right.
You have to dig for the irony, but it's udner there.
It is fundamentally unjust for anybody to have to go out of their way to insure that a person has not said no in regards to you specifically when they have said yes generally.
It would be no different from you having to check with Washington before entering every store you approach, or viewing every website you wish to view.
If you put a 'no soliciting' sign on your lawn it tells the visitor without him having to go out of his way to check. For this reason it is a completely different situation.
You're interfering with a service I've purchased (access to a bonafide email server), and because I have the right to free speech, and I want YOU to hear what I have to say.
This law doesn't have to do with email addresses or phone numbers. The analogy would be if I told you you weren't allowed to email me if you had my address (which I never go out of my way to hide anyway).
You know what? I purchased a service (phone service), too. I have the right to use it how I want, in accordance with FCC regulations.
You have the right to use it however you want. The problem is that the telemarketers also have the right to use it how they want.
I very much dispute this. *I* never made any such agreement.
...so a law doing so is necessarily unconstitutional.
Did you contract for phone service in which anybody with the service may call you? In other words, did you contract for standard phone service? If so you DID make the agreement.
I very much dispute this as well. My right to the privacy of my own home, if I request it, trumps this other so-called "right" in every conceivable way.
Right, and by agreeing that anyone else may call, you voluntarily give up that right.
A false analogy! A list in your desk is not publicized in a known location that can be easily accessed.
You assume that everyone who might want to call, that would be disallowed by this list, would know about the list and be able to access it. Neither of these is necessarily true.
This is in stark contrast to the normal analogy involving "keep out" signs on the lawn.
And the worse analogy of the week award goes to... A55M0NKEY!!!
I mean seriously, this is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen about telemarketing. From flawed premises to an incredibly contrived conclusion, this comment is truely one for the record books.
Now excuse me, the power company is hacking into my computer (by sending power through its plug). I need to go secure a lawyer, though not through the mail, that would be hacking his mailbox.
Telemarketing is a form of harassment. It induces a state of distrust and even fear in what was created to be a means of strengthing the community, namely the ring of the phone.
But you invite them in by having a phone service that allows incoming calls from these people.
It is not the government's place to prevent citizens from bringing harassment upon themselves.
Free speech means you can say what you like, it doesn't mean I have to listen to it, nor does it mean you can come to my house and say it.
And nobody says you have to listen to the telemarketers. They have no guarantee of audience, and so this particular argument against a first amendment violation is nonsense.
In the end telephone users have to take responsibility for themselves. Demanding that telemarketers not call is precisely like demanding that no redheads access your public web site.
Unless that desire was expressed directly to the caller, he has ever right to make the phone call.
By contracting for phone service, one is agreeing to have anyone else call them. In order to make exceptions to this rule people must be told individually not to call.
Saying "I'm on the list in Washington and therefore you can't call" is like saying "I'm on a the list in my desk drawer and therefore you can't call." The only difference is that the first has the force of law, and so declaring it valid begs that the law is valid in the first place.
This doesn't abridge freedom of speech, it abridges the delegation of powers. There is no place for the federal government to be telling me who I can't call on my own phone, and so a law doing so is necessarily unconstitutional.
Note that if you tell me not to call, that is still enforcable by simple private property rights. But the feds have no place in that conversation.
Do I have to tell every one individually (most of whom have a problem identifying themselves unless you pretend to be interested in buying their crap) that I don't want them to call??
Yes, you do.
Otherwise you're interfering with their right to do what they want with the service they've purchased.
It sucks when reality is against you, but the reality is that you subscribed to a service that works like this, and now you're complaining about it.
If you don't like it, don't pay for it.
If you insist on telling telemarketers what they can do with their phones, don't complain when I start telling you what you can do with your web browser.
But this law doesn't attack those who harrass by that definition.
It attacks everyone making that first call.
The law is a bad one, just defining another victimless crime and providing another example of Americans running to their government at the slightest annoyance.