Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List 414

Posted by timothy from the no-thanks-b'bai dept.
MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List More

160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List

Comments Filter:

  • Political calls are exempt? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:54PM (#5036001)
    Why would political calls be exempt from this? They're trying to sell something. I might be convinced to agree that non-profit calls are alright, but political calls?
    • Lots of statistics rely on political surveys. I'm not sure if this allows all types of political calls, or possibly just non-biased ones such as surveys.

    • Conflict of interest (Score:2, Informative)

      by jDinK ( 638269 )
      That's exactly what I was thinking. It seems there's an awful conflict of interest when politicians allow themselves to call people on the do-not-call list, joined only by non-profits.
      • That's exactly what I was thinking. It seems there's an awful conflict of interest when politicians allow themselves to call people on the do-not-call list, joined only by non-profits.

        It's the nature of the State to allow its representatives to do what is illegal for everyone else.

        • And if they ever pass a law against spam, it will turn out that unsolicited policial email has been redefined as other than spam.

          That, and the fact that local tin-pot candidates for parking attendent will spam the global .com .org and .edu domains should surprise no one. (I expect to get spam to my .ca account from Potluck AR, USA, but I'm usually knurd on Klatchian coffee and expect the worst.)

    • Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bmwm3nut ( 556681 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:58PM (#5036027)
      Because it takes politicions to make the legislation to have a do-not-call list. do you think they want to make it harder to get reelected?
    • Why would political calls be exempt from this?
      You expect politicians to live by their own rules, to vote in restrictions on what they can do? Ha! The government also is exempt from a lot of labor laws.
    • Why would political calls be exempt? It might have something to do with the fact that those who made the law are politicians.

      My state, Minnesota, also exempts political calls on its has do-not-call list. Like the one for MA, it has been extremely popular. In just three months, nearly half of the state's residential numbers have been signed up.
    • Congressman: A "do not call list," eh? My constituents will love this!

      Aide: What about businesses that rely on telemarketing?

      Congressman: Maybe if they can "persuade" me (nudge, nudge), I'll change my mind. Heh.

      Aide: But sir! How will we drum up support for our re-election bid?

      Congressman: Hmmm. Good point. Let's throw in a few exemptions for "political" campaigns.

      Aide: Won't that make you look hypocritical?

      Congressman: Nah, I just toss in "non-profit organizations" to deflect attention. It's a home run!

    • 1st Amendment (Score:5, Informative)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:13PM (#5036153) Homepage
      I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.

      There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).

      BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?

      • Re:1st Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:17PM (#5036178) Homepage
        Re 1st Am issues...

        Yes, they have a right to say things, but they don't have a right to force me to hear them.

        • Re:1st Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
          True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.

          Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.

          The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.

          Here [freedomforum.org] is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending [freedomforum.org] that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read [freedomforum.org])

      • It has passed muster multiple times (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DiveX ( 322721 ) <slashdotnewcontact@oasisofficepark.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:20PM (#5037052) Homepage
        Every case challenging the TCPA on constitutional grounds (1st amendment, due process clause, etc) has ultimately held the TCPA's restrictions on faxes and telemarketing calls presents noconstitutional infirmities under First Amendment grounds. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies (in terms of junk faxing) to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.

        Texas v. ABF, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (W.D. Tex, 2000)(fax calls)

        Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir.1995) aff'g 844 F.Supp. 632 (D. Or.1994)(fax calls)

        Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995) (telemarketing calls) cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161 (1995)

        Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995) reh'd. 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997)(fax calls)

        Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 668 A.2d 1099 (Super. Ct. N.J. 1996) (telemarketing calls).

        Come courts have decided otherwsie; an 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge recently ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court). It has been essentially attacked by every authority since. See Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew my faith in our legal system. This decision by the state court was extremely well done and is highly entertaining reading. Also take a look at the US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling. In addition, another Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.

        Links:
        http://www.junkfax.org/fax/reference/oth er_cases/o lympic-1a.pdf
        http://www.junkfax.org/fax/referenc e/other_cases/s t-lou-1a-ua.pdf
        http://www.junkfax.org/fax/refere nce/other_cases/D OJAmicusSupportingMissouri.pdf

  • It's cool, but there's one downside (Score:3, Insightful)

    by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:57PM (#5036011) Homepage
    Here you have to PAY to be on the do-not-call list, which, to me at least, sucks. I'm looking at alternative methods, such as making the "out-of-service" tone on my answering machine.

    So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks!

    'Erotic sushi' bar serves up tantalizing treats [xnewswire.com]

    • " I'm looking at alternative methods, such as making the "out-of-service" tone on my answering machine. "

      I did that once. Not only did I stop getting tele-marketing calls, I stopped getting calls from my friends too. Evidentally, just telling them that the sound is fake isn't enough.

    • "Here you have to PAY to be on the do-not-call list, which, to me at least, sucks...So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks! "

      I think what you're probably paying for is the resources needed to maintain that list. Not sure about where you live, but here in Oregon we can't even keep our schools open. Paying $5 or so (Oregon's cost, not sure what yours is...) doesn't seem like a big deal.

      As for having to block them, I see what you're saying but they're rebuttal would be "we make money to keep your costs low." The truth is somewhere in between.

      Now you know why I keep my primary communication on the internet. Everybody I know has e-mail, and the vast majority of them are on IM of some sort. I realize that's not going to be a choice for everybody, but it does cut down on the phone traffic.

      Since I've cut down on the phone traffic, I only have a cell phone. That means I get caller ID, and a notification when I get voice mail. I don't even jump to get to my phone anymore. It's on silent. When it rings, I read the caller ID and make a choice whether or not to let it go to voice mail. I get around to it eventually. That alone makes telemarketing hard to get through.

      Back in the olden days, the phone was something you just had to get to while it was ringing. If you take a more convenient approach like I have, telemarketers aren't so annoying.

  • Want to know why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kaz Riprock ( 590115 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:57PM (#5036014)

    It took me 5 minutes to sign up my home and cell phone numbers for being on the do-not-call list in MA. A toll-free call and 5 minutes. Not a Self-Addressed-Stamped-Envelope or some crazy address that no one can remember or write down fast enough to get signed up on the list.

    As long as the other states make it similarly easy to sign up, then you'll get the same participation.
    • you had to list your cell phone number? It'll be a very sad day when solicitors start calling my cell using my minutes that I pay for

      • Re:cell phone? (Score:3, Funny)

        by ostiguy ( 63618 )
        someone probably once said, "it'll be a sad day when people exploit the openness of core internet protocols for commercial gain"

        ostiguy

      • Re:cell phone? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Cato the Elder ( 520133 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:32PM (#5036307) Homepage
        It'll be a very sad day when solicitors start calling my cell using my minutes that I pay for

        Well, a sad day unless you are happy at the prospect of suing them for violating the law. It is already illegal to make a solicitation to a cellular phone, and you can collect $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. (see here [cornell.edu] for the relevant legalese).

      • Something amusing: In Commonwealth English, the term "solicitor" refers to a lawyer. When I first visited the US, the airport had these annoucements about how you did not have to give money to solicitors, and the airport did not encourage their activities. I found this funny.

    • I live in Texas, and not only does it cost ~$2 to sign up, but there's a bunch of confusing exemptions, roughly 6 months delay of activation, and is only available for residential phones. I can get more than $2 enjoyment out of telling off a telemarketer, or out of speaking nothing but German till they get confused and hang up. They generally don't call back after that one. So unless it's going to be free as in beer, and without exemption, I'm not gonna bother unless, as the parent post says, it becomes similarly easy to Mass.'s program, with a plus for no exemptions.

    • Re:Want to know why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by afidel ( 530433 )
      No need to add your cell phone, it is already illegal to make solicitations to cellphone numbers and since they are owned in nice convenient blocks it is easy for the blocks to be provided to telemarketers and for them to remove them from calling lists.

  • Here's a list of several state's DNC lists (Score:5, Informative)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:59PM (#5036031)
    http://www.the-dma.org/government/donotcalllists.s html [the-dma.org]

    Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh

  • Gee, what's the one thing that bugs more people than anything else?

    Is it paying taxes? Nope. Is it the commercials on tv? Nope. It's some poor SOB calling you while your eating, or on saturday at 8 in the morning trying to offer you some stupid service or credit card you A)don't want and B) didn't sign up for.

    I hope and pray those telemarketing bastards get shot down. I have a phone, yes, but it's not so you can peddle your shit to me.
    • I've never understood the big deal. Personally, I don't answer the phone. The answering machine gets the message and I call people back. If my wife happens to answer the phone and give it to me, if it is a salesperson, I hang up.

  • DMA's Side.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:01PM (#5036048)

    All I'm finding on their website is these "Action Alert" things that don't really make any argument other than lots of people have jobs annoying other people over the phone. Lots of people have jobs as prostitutes too. That doesn't make it legal (although I'm much more inclined to have legalized prostitution than I am to outlaw do-not-call lists).

    • For that matter, wouldn't most people with jobs that involve calling people prefer to only call people who don't hate getting called? Telemarketting involves calling a few people who like to buy things over the phone, a few people who could be convinced to buy things if pressured, and a ton of people who get upset if they get called. The first group won't get on a DNC list, the second mostly won't bother, and the third generally will. Net result: fewer sales, but higher yield. And it's more pleasent for the people who're making the calls. I don't think telemarketers have to worry about losing their jobs, either, since there are a whole lot of phone numbers to call.

  • Obligatory Junkbusters link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Freaky Potato ( 611673 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:04PM (#5036067)
    Junkbusters has a neat script to use when telemarketers call:

    http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html [junkbusters.com]

    Gives them a run for their money and, best of all, if the telemarketer takes a wrong step, they open the company up to legal action.

  • How long before political committees start leasing out space?

    "Hello, will you be voting for Bush in the next election?"
    "No."
    "Well then, would you like to have the the Daily Liberal newspaper delivered to your door?"

    Jason.
  • I love the form letters that the DMA wants folks to send in to their congressman:
    I am opposed to the creation of a national do-not-call list.

    I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the destruction of a $700 billion sector of our economy by putting its immense power behind creating, promoting and expanding a national do-not-call list. This list is certain to contain millions of people who might otherwise have become (or already are) satisfied consumers of teleservices products and services, and who we need to survive and grow.

    At a time when we are experiencing budget deficits and struggling to emerge from recession, can we afford to risk losing the billions in tax revenues this industry generates, not to mention the millions of jobs it provides?

    Professional telemarketers are trained to respect people's right to say "no," hang up, or be permanently taken off of a calling list. In addition, The Direct Marketing Association already has a national do-not--call list and requires all of its members to screen these names from their lists or suffer penalties, including possible expulsion from The DMA.

    In my view, the Federal government should not be in the business of destroying this productive, economically vital form of sales communication. It is my sincere hope that the FTC reconsiders this anti-business, anti-competitive, job-killing proposal.
    The irony is, if the DMA's DNC was actually effective (and used) by their member organizations, state and federal governments wouldn't be pressured by citizens to implement something like this. They've taken their proverbial mile walk with the inch given them and now they're screaming that it's anti-competitive. I also find it somewhat amusing that they consider minimum wage telemarketing jobs as "productive" and "economically vital".

  • Easy call list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:05PM (#5036075)
    Nonprofit and political calls are exempt

    If nonprofits are exempt then can't they just solicit everyone on the do-not-call list?

    Suppose I have an unlisted number, then it's unlikely that a charity will be able to get my number (unless someone sells it to them). But if I register with the do-not-call list then I've basically published my phone number for every nonprofit and political party to add to their call list.

  • Why Is Anyone Exempted? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:06PM (#5036087) Homepage
    Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?

    I mean ...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.

    I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
    • Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising.

      I'm not saying who's right. Er, left. :)
      • MacAndrew writes:
        "Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising."

        I'd be very surprised if the ACLU came out against not exempting politicians from this law (though I don't agree with the ACLU on everything, who does?). There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
    • Well, that's a bit harsh, but I think you may be more cynical about the motives for exempting politicians from this than is actually justified.

      As I understand it, different types of speech are protected to greater or lesser extents by the first amendment. Political speech is the most protected, and the courts are (rightly) loath to allow restrictions on it. Hence, the parts of such a bill that restrict politicians from making unsolicited calls could well, as I understand US law, be found unconstitional.

      Nonprofits are a different matter, of course.

      IANAL. IANA American, either :)

  • Why this means nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by big_debacle ( 413628 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:07PM (#5036091)
    Legitimate marketing companies have maintained and adhered to Do Not Solicit lists for years. Companies that broke the rules will continue to break the rules--including ignoring these lists. Heck, the company I worked for maintained a list of over 3,000,000 Do Not Solicits that it had accumulated over the years.

    The law allows political calls, charity calls and calls from someone you do business with or have done business with. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that a majority of the telemarketing calls I receive fall into one of these very broad catagories.

    If a company breaks the rules, how are you going to track them down? And if you track them down, what can you do? In the past, all a company has had to do was show that they were making every effort to adhere to the established rules.

    If nothing else, perhaps we should all think about the amount of time and money invested in something like this and realize that it's just a phone call. I mean, my phone has a special anti-telemarketer button that came with it--it's that one you press to hang up.
    • Funny, once I signed up for my State's list my calls from "Unknown" all stopped. In fact since I've been on the list I've gotten one call from a telemarketer, whom I reported. Before the list I was getting 2-3 calls a day.
    • perhaps you should bother and research your questions. there are ways to find these people, and many people do.

      I pay X dollars for my phone line, if you want to use to make money, you should have to pay me for my line.

  • what compelling arguments... (Score:3, Funny)

    by H0NGK0NGPH00EY ( 210370 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:08PM (#5036100) Homepage
    "The Federal Trade Commission is planning on creating a new "national do-not-call" list which could greatly diminish the number of potential call recipients. Should the federal government be in the business of tearing down this industry? Make your voices heard."

    "tearing down this industry" I love it. When the "industry" is calling people in their homes and annoying them with your "amazing new offer," then I say yes! This summer, at my job, Verizon actually called us 3 times in the same day! Seriously. I liked my boss' approach. As soon as they started talking: "I can tell already that I don't want to talk to you." *click"

    I think my favorite though is my friend who, when called by some bank being offered a credit card responded with something along the lines of: "That's great! This is just what I need right now. All 6 of my other cards are maxed out, and I had to take out a second mortgage on my house. I was really wondering what I was goign to do!" I think that they actually hung up on her.

  • Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tyekanik ( 457042 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:10PM (#5036120)
    Browsing Slashdot, I've noticed a fair number of the readership are pretty hard-line libertarians; total opposition to government regulations, and fierce protection of privacy being two major qualities I've seen.

    The whole direct marketing by phone issue seems to be an area where, with regard to those qualities, you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. If the corprations are unregulated, they'll try and flog stuff to you down the phone day and night. The Market wouldn't seem to work in thia case, as even if 99% of us hang up immediately and boycott the company, the remaining 1% will still provide a customer base the company can get by on. However, if the Feds step in, the companies' freedom goes out the window.

    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Libertarianism (My views have been pretty well up in the air since Tommy Sheridan destroyed my faith in socialism by being a prick), I was just wondering if any Libertarians here could tell me what their position on this is.

    Cheers.

    • My take on this (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JZ_Tonka ( 570336 )
      My interpretation of (and belief in) Libertarianism stems from the notion that one individual or company's freedom ends where it interferes with the freedom of others.

      I think telemarketing is one such breach of that boundary, as well as any other type of unsolicited communication, including e-mails and snail mail. As miniscule the amount of time it wastes, dealing with these intrusions is an unwanted effort that people shouldn't have to expend for the sake of someone else's need.

    • Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Put two libertarians together, and you'll get three different opinions.
    • My position on this is that I'm free to put a "No Trespassing" sign up at the end of my driveway and brandish my guns at anyone foolish enough to come to the door to sell me something anyway. The fact that I can't shoot assholes who harass me on the phone is unfortunate, but a do not call list law is a step in the right direction.

    • Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkSkiesAhead ( 562955 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:47PM (#5036823)

      This is a rather tricky issue for libertarians. Most libertarians believe in minimumal government regulation and an every-man-for-himself attitude. But, advertisers are the bad guys so it's difficult stand up for them.

      As a libertarian I can give you my perspective, but I can't claim to represent most libertarians or that I hold the "purist" libertarian point of view.

      Fundamentally I don't believe in anyone's right not to be hassled. If you live among or deal with society you run the risk of interacting with people. You always have the option to go be a hermit or disconnect your phone. There is no right which guarantees you that other people will not be assholes. I don't believe in any basic principle by which a company is never allowed to call you just because you don't want them to. If you make your number public (you have the option not to) you have to accept the consequences.

      However, the rights of the company end when they start to invade yours. This is where it gets really tricky. When does a call trample on one of your rights?

      Do you have a right not to be annoyed? I don't think so. But, I do believe you have a right every damn penny you own and if a company costs you money by calling then they have trampled on your rights. That's why I favor laws against calling cell phones for marketing purposes. Or, perhaps you receive a high volume of vital calls and sorting out the bogus ones would cost you money. Perhaps you have a line only for emergency purposes and every time it needs to be answered costs you time and money.

      All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky. Perhaps it's best for everyone to evaluate their own situation. I don't know anyone who would say "yeah, it costs me nothing when I get called by a telemarketer", so by that method everyone would qualify for the "don't call" list. Is that fair? I don't know.

      Ultimately, it depends on a very subjective judgement call. For now I'm perfectly happy to see a very loose interpretation of "that call cost me money/resources/time that I had the right to". But, perhaps it will need to be re-evaluated sometime in the future.

      • If someone wants to spend their money advertising to me, say by putting a billboard on the street (assuming it's not offensive - most countries have regulations about that) then it's costing the advertiser money, and not interfering in my life.

        If I've just got my baby to sleep and some arsehole phones up asking if I want a 2nd mortgage, that is costing me more than money, that is interfering in my family life.

      • I don't believe in any basic principle by which a company is never allowed to call you just because you don't want them to.

        Your straw man is aggrivating my sinuses. The relevant principle is that I want telemarketers off the phone line I am paying for. If they want to offer a deal where they pay my phone bill and I let them make X number of calls per month, I'd consider it.

        All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky.

        It's not the slightest little bit "tricky". The person who is paying for that phone number to remain in service gets to decide.

    • It seems to me that you can have government regulations to improve our lives, or you can have civil lawsuits. They both acheive the same goals except one system favours the rich and encourages callous uncaring governments who want to redistribute wealth to their lawyer buddies, and the other system leaves people feeling like they're burded with an interferring and over-weight government justifying your tax burden by spending it frivolously. In one camp are socialists, in the other, libertarians (ok: I will call them the right-wing American Libertarian party followers to distinguish them from the socialist anarchists in other countries that also consider themselves libertarian).
  • You Mass people must like the telemarketers.

  • This is funny... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:12PM (#5036141)


    E-mail bill
    Bill # H.R.718

    Original Sponsor:
    Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st)

    Cosponsor Total: 115
    (last sponsor added 06/05/2001)
    43 Democrats
    72 Republicans
    About This Legislation:
    This bill would require accurate return addresses on unsolicited commercial e-mail. HR 718 would make it illegal to continue sending junk e-mail to a person who has asked to be removed from a distribution list, require unsolicited commercial e-mail to be labeled, and require ISP's to let their customers opt-out of receiving junk e-mail. The bill would also set a penalty for continuing to send junk e-mail after someone has asked for it to stop. HR 718 would also allow ISP's to sue spammers for $500 per message if they violate their antispam policy.

    The DMA opposes HR 718 and has testified before Congress on the bill's onerous provisions.

    They don't actually say what provisions they find to be onerous. Is it the fact that people can decide that they don't want to receive junk mail? Or is it the fact that they have to provide an accurate return address? Or maybe it's the fact that they would have to label their advertisements as what they are instead of trying to make people think they are something else. No... couldn't be any of those things. That would make the DMA seem evil :) Must be the fact that there is actually a punishment for violating these rules. That's gotta suck.

  • Do-Not-Call lists rock (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:14PM (#5036157)
    I live in CO which implimented a do-not-call list about a year ago. I can say it works damn well. I get almost no unsolicited calls. This is compared to when I visited the family over christmas and was having to hang up on 3-4 telemarketers each day. There were no calls during the elections this year so either there is a difference in the law between states or this stipulation has little impact. The only thing I get are calls from the firefighter and Police fraturaties which are delt with with a simple, "Please put me on your 'do not call' list. Thankyou"

  • Popular in Colorado (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bloodmoon1 ( 604793 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `noirepyh.eb'> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:16PM (#5036168) Homepage Journal
    Here in Colorado, our DNC list has been taking subscribers for less than a year, and has been enforceable for about 3 months, and so far 1 million lines are on it. Not sure how many lines we have all together, but the state's total population is 4.4 mil, so I predict Mass. will probably get more than a third of their population on board in the end. And as for the legal challenges, several companies have tried to stop the list with no luck. It's actually kind of funny because it seems like they have some valid arguments sometimes, but the courts refuse to listen to them.

  • Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by beholder77 ( 89716 ) <dungeons AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:23PM (#5036220) Homepage
    I know I'll get modded down for this :)

    I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

    Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.

    • Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:33PM (#5036323) Homepage
      Before you go down all alone...

      My mom worked as a telemarketer for a while, doing surveys actually. She did it because she hated humanity .. oh wait, because she/we needed the income. I assure you she was unfailingly polite and did not have cloven feet.

      That said, I really think we should be able to cook up better jobs for similarly qualified people, something with some skills taught and upward mobility. If these jobs exist, believe me they'll get taken quick. I regret hearing antiquated or destructive industries defended as "providing jobs" -- most recently by a Christmas tree grower. (Good reason to buy a Christmas tree: you want one. Bad reason: to create jobs.)

      Jobs and productivity are good for the economy. But not just any jobs.
    • but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

      Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.

      Just like the guy in the black mask robbing the liquor store? Just be happy to give him your wallet! You're helping to support his heroin habit! You wouldn't want him to die from withdrawl, would you?

      Fast food is always hiring, and I'd argue it is much more moral. I'd also wager it provides for greater experience -- You can honestly deal with people like you might in any other real customer service activity; and updward mobility -- being a Burger King GM isn't that bad of a deal.

    • BS. (Score:2)

      by raehl ( 609729 )
      Banning telemarketing doesn't kill jobs. It makes the company spend their money on DIFFERENT jobs - ones that might, say, improve the product.

      Or just reducing the cost of their product to compete better.

      Either way, more money available for something that doesn't annoy people during dinner.

    • I know I'll get modded down for this :)

      I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

      Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family. Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.

      Right. Let's reword this a little more extremely:

      "I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (marketing) of child pornography. I get just as annoyed at child pornographers as everyone else, but these people are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

      "Let them ask if they can take photos of your children, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family."

      ---

      I'm not saying it's as evil as child pornography, but it is still evil. Lack of money is no justification for lack of morality. You have to draw the line somewhere. I suppose mine is a little further over than yours towards respect for an individual's privacy.

      .02

      cLive ;-)

  • The worldwide federation of unsolicted email has just provided a do-not-spam email list. The list will provide an easy way for spammers to check and see if your email address is on the list, so that you will not receive their wonderful deals! When asked if spammers would use the list to send you anonymous advertising, the federation replied, "Spammers are good honest citizens of society and would never do such a thing."

  • California's is over-due (Score:3, Informative)

    by Charles Dodgeson ( 248492 ) <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:25PM (#5036241) Homepage Journal
    According to law, California should have had one up and running by Jan 1, 2003. But it appears that the Attorney General isn't interested in doing it.

    If you are in California, make a fuss about this in your local press.

    The AG's office website gives gives some information [state.ca.us], but fails to mention that they've let the deadline slide.

  • I've been using the NY Do-Not-Call List for a bit and it works pretty well, so far. There are, however, a few loopholes. I don't know about the ones outside the state, but for the NY one the company is allowed to call you if you've already done business with it, are doing business with it or either one of those for a parent company or subdivision. That's pretty broad so a few still get through.

  • Why would anyone want to be on this list... (Score:5, Funny)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:29PM (#5036289)
    when telemarketers are such a great form of entertainment. When telemarketers call me, I don't just hang up- I prank them. I pretend to have a heart attack, or to kill someone, or ask them what they're wearing. Bonus points for the more you can scare/piss them off.

    Hell, they're wasting my time by bugging me, providing a ource of amusement is the least they can do.

  • Another BIG exemption. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Snover ( 469130 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:31PM (#5036305) Homepage
    Any transation that cannot be completed over the phone is exempt from the do-not-call list. That means most of those annoying recorded messages that end up on your answering machine -- "Sorry I missed you, but let me tell you about a great deal on clothes at..."
  • Once, when I had just turned 18 and there was a political election of some sort in my town, I got a phone call from a political faction who asked me how I intended to vote on bill X (which I don't remember anyway). I angrily told him never to call again and hung up, and my mom went off on me for a good ten minutes yelling about how political calls are different from telemarketers. Is she, as I think, merely poisoned by society's expectations, or was I in the wrong?

  • I receive almost no unsolicited calls (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:34PM (#5036326)
    The trick was very simple. I sent in a post card to the Direct Marketing Association asking to be placed on their do not call list. And then, when people call, I always say to place me on their do not call list. I get less than one live phone call a month. (The thing I get are recorded messages from autodialers. Some God-damned charity thinks I want to reward their harrassment by giving them a car.)

    I have read that over sixty percent of the populations purchases an item at least once a month in response to a telephone call. I know people who make these calls for a living. Certain people appreciate the opportunity to donate to their charity over the telephone, or to make theatre subscriptions. But telemarketers are not interested in wasting their time in calling people who are not going to buy, donate or subscribe.

    Here is a link [dmaconsumers.org] on the Direct Marketing Association website that explains about how to get off telephone list. I can attest that it has worked for me. And the cost was only for a postcard.

  • Hmm (Score:2)

    by Have Blue ( 616 )
    How many of the numbers do you think are actually in Massechusettes?

  • Get off the line!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:35PM (#5036340)
    All you out of staters /.ers get off the server!! I'm trying to sign up, dammit!!
  • We did this about a year ago here, and its cut down a LOT on the calls.

    A few suits have been filed for violators too.

    They institued both a call in line to sign up and a web page.

    its funded by the companies purchasing the list so they dont violate the law.. a bit shady i think, but something had to be done.

  • Nearly all of the calls I get (in Australia BTW) are of the form "Would you like to come to our free seminar" or something like that. Mainly real estate or investment groups. All the others tend to be "non-profits" soliciting donations.

    Since they're not trying to complete a sale in the call, they wouldn't be excluded.

    A pretty piss-weak "do not call" list if you ask me. This legislation makes about as much sense as US foreign policy.

  • I wouldn't sign up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rai ( 524476 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:46PM (#5036415) Homepage
    I actually enjoy calls from phone spammers for one reason...I cost them money. I never just hang up on them. That's too easy, let's them move on the next person. I stay on the line and talk to them as long as I can. I ask all kind of stupid questions and act interested in whatever crap they're pitching. Of course, I never buy anything. When I run out of questions, I just say "Not interested" and wait for them to start whining. This wastes a lot of their time and of course time is money. If more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list.
    • i wouldn't do that....

      i often ask if they are on salary on a commission based job...

      if they are commission, i tell them that IF they were salary based i would sit and chat so they would have something to do, but since they are commissioned, they need to get another #$%@#% job.

      and sometimes, i've chatted with people for so long, they get caught by their boss and fake chit chat...
  • bah, they did the same thing CT did a long long time ago

    http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/PDF/nocallcp.pdf [state.ct.us] has a nice little for you could fill out, or call up for, to sign up on the do not call list

    this has been going on for years now.

  • Violations (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brandonsr ( 550431 )
    Do any of the people who get these violated calls see any of that 5,500 dollars?

  • The DMA has a webform for comments (Score:4, Informative)

    by Phil Karn ( 14620 ) <karn.ka9q@net> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:08PM (#5036557) Homepage
    The DMA's website has a webform [capwiz.com] for commenting on the proposed do-not-call rule. They helpfully pre-fill in an editor window with a suggested letter.

    I cut the suggested text, replaced it with "As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database. The DMA can go to hell", signed it and submitted it.

    Phil

    • Here's Mine: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mandi Walls ( 6721 )
      As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database.

      I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the continuance of an industry by ignoring the concerns of the public.

      At a time when the number of older Americans is going to grow tremendously, their protection from scam artists and con men is more important than providing jobs for the semi-literate scum who interrupt their dinners.

      The American economy doesn't need irate consumers. It needs people to stabilize their credit and be responsible with their money. This does not include purchasing magazines, aluminum siding or family portraits from businesses they do not know.

      The DMA's half-hearted attempts to appease the American public with their sorry excuse for a do-not-call list has finally been recognized for what it is - a sham. And the public has finally raised their voice and asked the government to devise a more rigorous scheme to curtail the amount of intrusions we must incur simply by having a telephone number.

      As a consumer, I can only hope that the Federal goverment will continue to persue these avenues and also address the problem of unsolicited email in the future. Until that time, however, I fully expect the DMA to stand up for the thieves and spammers so that I might also increase the size of my penis by three inches while refinancing my mortgage and protecting my Windows computer from viruses. Being that I have neither a penis, a mortgage, or a computer running Windows, I will rejoice when legislation is passed to finally put an end to unsolicited email, as well.

      --mandi

  • Noticed this while digging around the links. Doubtful that any sensible person would give their SSN over the phone to a stranger ... but people do continue to watch the Anna Nicole Smith show, so who knows?

    http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketsca m.html [fcc.gov]

  • One possible challenge the DMA could mount (Score:3, Interesting)

    by release7 ( 545012 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:59PM (#5036902) Homepage Journal
    As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.

  • My letter to elected officials (Score:3, Informative)

    by valmont ( 3573 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:09PM (#5036971) Homepage Journal
    January 7, 2003

    [recipient address was inserted here]

    Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

    I am entirely in favor of a national do-not-call list.

    I find it obnoxiously intrusive to constantly receive solicitation from
    telemarketers in my own home, which too often take too much of the
    precious time i wish to spend with loved ones, while recovering from my
    rigorous working hours.

    Furthermore, while telemarketers are supposed to be trained to respect
    people's right to say "no", it has been my personal experience to find it
    often challenging to exercise that right, faced with somewhat resilient
    telemarketers who just would not take "NO" for an answer.

    Current laws already give me the right to request from the caller that
    they no-longer call me. When getting 3 to 5 different telemarketing calls
    in a same evening, this already represents more time than i am willing to
    spend to protect a peaceful existence.

    The Direct Marketing Association does have an opt-out list. No business is
    *required* to become part of the DMA. While they provide strict rules for
    their members to abide by, enforcing those rules and punishing offenders
    strictly relies on *potential* complaints from residents, which requires a
    significant amount of work from the resident to determine whether or not
    the telemarketer belongs to the DMA, and for the DMA to follow-up on those
    issues. While the system appears to be beneficial on the surface, I truly
    believe it provides no *significant* protection to victims of telemarketer
    calls.

    In my view, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the
    privacy of citizens who make the conscious decision to not ever be
    sollicited by telemarketers while at home. I believe a federally-regulated
    do-not-call list with provisions for strong sanctions against offenders is
    the single, true, effective answer to a problem that has been plaguing our
    society for far too many decades.

    Sincerely,

    [ME. HEH]

  • More calls, less telemarketers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @01:21AM (#5037990)
    I was added to the do-not-call list in Tennessee. When it took effect the calls stopped for quite a while.

    Then, they began again.

    However, now instead of a telemarketer on the other end when I pick up the phone, all I get is a "click" and I am disconnected.

    The automated calling systems still call me - more than ever it seems (a DOZEN calls a day is a bit much, dontchathink?) - but now they do not transfer me to a telemarketer, but simply disconnect me.

    Their numbers are completely blocked and I cannot find out who they are, but I'm sure even if I did, they would claim they are not actually violating the rules, as they are not talking to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close