For me personally, I don't see the benefit. The cost of forwarding all of my mail to Australia is prohibitive (as I live in the continental USA) and time-consuming - I could not use this for anything timely (like bills). To be honest, there is really no other snail mail that I get that would be worth archiving, as most of it is advertisements, credit offers, and other meaningless solicitations. Although, how does this service handle magazine subscriptions???
I am disturbed by the multitudes of people out there who think that this national No-Call List is the answer to harrassment by marketing companies. Unless you are going through reasonable measures to ensure your own privacy, no list is going to secure it for you...
What the whole argument comes down to goes back to the old argument of "assumption of privacy." This legal grey area has historically been the subject of much interpretation, most extensively in defining what constitutes a legal search and seizure under law enforcement auspices. For example, you get pulled over by the local John Q. Law. In most locales anything in plain view can be searched, as anything that is in "plain view" of the public cannot be reasonably assumed "private." But some states (Florida, for instance) have extended the assumption of privacy to exclude the trunk of your automobile. So, anything in your trunk is not considered private, and therefore subject to search (without a warrant). Again, the line here is extremely subjective to the governing body.
How does this extend to a National No-Call list?
It all goes back to "assumption of privacy." The offending party (telemarketer) must be shown to have access to information that is reasonably defined as "private." How "private" is your phone number if it is listed in your local phone book, available at every public phone booth? What about that frequent shopper card you signed up for at the local grocery? Some cards, in the fine print, use information about your purchases to market products. By signing up for the card, you are giving consent to this monitoring. Let's not even begin to talk about internet usage monitoring. So, reasonably, you are already providing what you think is "private" information to third parties. If the telemarketer gets information by your consent (explicit or implied), is it really invasion of privacy?
Just some things to consider. Many of the services you already elicit come with extra strings attached that go against what you would consider priveledged information. Even if a national No-Call List becomes a reality, all it takes is some little piece of fine print you fail to read when signing up for a new credit card to supercede the list's effective power.
Your company is paying this other company for monitoring services. If you are not satisfied with the work that they are doing, let them (and those in your company who make these decisions) know about it. If they are unreceptive (which it sounds like they have), take your business elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
For me personally, I don't see the benefit. The cost of forwarding all of my mail to Australia is prohibitive (as I live in the continental USA) and time-consuming - I could not use this for anything timely (like bills). To be honest, there is really no other snail mail that I get that would be worth archiving, as most of it is advertisements, credit offers, and other meaningless solicitations. Although, how does this service handle magazine subscriptions???
I am disturbed by the multitudes of people out there who think that this national No-Call List is the answer to harrassment by marketing companies. Unless you are going through reasonable measures to ensure your own privacy, no list is going to secure it for you... What the whole argument comes down to goes back to the old argument of "assumption of privacy." This legal grey area has historically been the subject of much interpretation, most extensively in defining what constitutes a legal search and seizure under law enforcement auspices. For example, you get pulled over by the local John Q. Law. In most locales anything in plain view can be searched, as anything that is in "plain view" of the public cannot be reasonably assumed "private." But some states (Florida, for instance) have extended the assumption of privacy to exclude the trunk of your automobile. So, anything in your trunk is not considered private, and therefore subject to search (without a warrant). Again, the line here is extremely subjective to the governing body. How does this extend to a National No-Call list? It all goes back to "assumption of privacy." The offending party (telemarketer) must be shown to have access to information that is reasonably defined as "private." How "private" is your phone number if it is listed in your local phone book, available at every public phone booth? What about that frequent shopper card you signed up for at the local grocery? Some cards, in the fine print, use information about your purchases to market products. By signing up for the card, you are giving consent to this monitoring. Let's not even begin to talk about internet usage monitoring. So, reasonably, you are already providing what you think is "private" information to third parties. If the telemarketer gets information by your consent (explicit or implied), is it really invasion of privacy? Just some things to consider. Many of the services you already elicit come with extra strings attached that go against what you would consider priveledged information. Even if a national No-Call List becomes a reality, all it takes is some little piece of fine print you fail to read when signing up for a new credit card to supercede the list's effective power.
Your company is paying this other company for monitoring services. If you are not satisfied with the work that they are doing, let them (and those in your company who make these decisions) know about it. If they are unreceptive (which it sounds like they have), take your business elsewhere.