U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List 1087
DirkDaring writes "Yahoo is reporting that a U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national 'do not call' list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls. With around 50 million phone numbers currently signed up this could get very messy."
That took real guts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporatocracy in Action (Score:2, Insightful)
We're hosed.
Or something (Score:3, Insightful)
Or has an enormously inflated sense of self-importance and likes that sort of thing.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, 50 million households who just handed their home phone numbers to every telemarketer in America.
Make sure that everybody knows who's opposing it (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an excellent way to use votes to pressure these people, without waiting for the next election. Let them know this influences your votes
Not really (Score:2, Insightful)
Ruling for business over private citizens. Now that's something that takes real guts in the US.
Dream on, but open your eyes to reality... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yesterday, I got wiped on the floor for suggesting that this will happen to the new Anti-Spam law in Cali.
Well, froth at the mouth all you want, it *will* come to pass.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Peachy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yippie. >:|
Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pick up a phone and let them know how you feel! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe after a few hours.... They might understand how we feel.
Re:Corporatocracy in Action (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily.
One of the dominant industries in Oklahoma is telemarketing (because there's no shortage of poor blacks and white trash who will work minimum wage while taking the abuse from those they call). Oklahoma politicians don't want the industry shut down, as the last thing they need is more people out of work.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or something (Score:3, Insightful)
With just his published home telephone number, that could amount to 50 million inquiries to see if he's interested in buying... I dunno... an old lawnmower... a stamp... an empty beer can.
Re:congressional authority (Score:3, Insightful)
But if it's an issue of Free Speech, the congress won't have the authority to grant the FTC this authority.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the DNC List, but the judge is probably right that it should have come out of the FCC.
I know the government sucks when it comes to effiency but hopefully the FCC can just pick up and run with the FTC's program.
J
50 million upset vs 50 million out of jobs... (Score:2, Insightful)
We are a small firm, only 12 employees. Imagine the damage that this would have done across the industry. Many people (read programmers) were about to lose their jobs and with the current state of the US economy that sucks.
That being said, its all just a matter of perspective. When I go home and my phone rings during dinner I want to throw it across the room. As a matter of fact, despite the company I work for I was one of the first to put my name on the DNC list.
no easy answers...
This could get messy... (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. This just shows that this is a very popular program. If the FTC did "overstep its bounds", then I'm sure congress can be convinced to change the FTC's 'bounds.' Better to have a Congressional stamp of approval on it anyway. I get worried when federal agencies start taking too much on themselves.
Overstepped its bounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, but not only did Congress approve this, but 50 million Americans did, too. If 50 million Americans say a law should go through, then I'm thinking that it should go through. If 100 telemarketing companies (and their 2 paltry million employees) say it shouldn't, well, majority rules in a democracy. 25 to 1, we win.
There are still plenty of appeals to come... this is a district court, so it can still go up to the Supreme Court if it has to. Even if the FTC can't get it done, there is more than enough support in Congress to pass their own law or do whatever they can do about it.
I am confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
I went here [ftc.gov] to the FTC site on rulemaking re: telemarketing calls, and it looks to my eye like this is authorized by existing legislation. Also, I read this on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Amended) [ftc.gov] and how it derives from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
I guess this is just a case of the court being overly cautious here, but I fail to see how this is a restraint on Free Speech, since (a) the speech we are talking about here falls into the "commercial" category (b) it is "speech" directed into people's private homes without their authorization, permission or any expectation that they want to be bothered with it. Free Speech doesn't mean the freedom to yell your speech into my ear whenever you feel like it.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what I don't understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on, hear me out.
If the Do-Not Call list goes into effect, then that will essentially be the Last Word on the subject. By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers. And, reversely, if you do NOT sign up, you are implicitly inviting them.
Now then, two points:
Number one, running a call center takes a LOT of money. The job is so odious that you can't pay minimum wage, you have to pay well above the standard wage for what is, otherwise, not a terribly difficult job. Plus overhead, huge phone bills, etc.
EVERY BAD NUMBER wastes money. A lot. We've seen those things about how you can screw TMs over by leaving the phone off the hook, etc. So, first of all, this would be a boon for the industry since it would weed out everyone they know would never, ever buy something over the phone. Far less wasted money in calling "Not Interesteds."
And, number two. Going with what I wrote at the top, you assume that any number NOT on the list is up for grabs. You then hire some market consultants and make God's own targetted marketing base. Every citizen not on that list, you start running background checks, sales figures, anything you can get at publically, and start fine-tuning your pitch to target those people specifically instead of taking the shotgun approach.
It would take a little setting up, but the end result would be a huge leap in actual sales, and less money wasted in worthless calls.
So, all this really just gives me even LESS pity for the DMA than I previously didn't have. Just like the RIAA, they're attempting to use the government and the court system to block a "scary" change to their business model, which would actually be a boon if they'd just open their eyes.
Such businesses do not deserve to exist.
You just signed up for what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:two things (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for a capitalist society, but these people need to fucking learn to sell their product in a way that doesn't make me want to destroy all that is good in their life.
Hmm if this was a vote.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Corporatocracy in Action (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason this ruling was issued was because a telemarketer had enough money to work the system.
You and I and the other 49,999,998 people on the list technically have the same rights, but the telemarketers' money makes them "more equal" than the rest of us.
The only persons who would consider the above comment offtopic or inappropriate are those who would rather keep the system as is - 0wn3d and c0rrupt3d...
Re:Peachy... (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to those 200 million numbers in the phone book? A number alone isn't worth much. You need some other information to decide wether a number is worth calling with a particular pitch. With these 50 million numbers they only additional data that they have is that these people don't want to be called. If I were a telemarketer, this list wouldn't appeal to me at all as a source.
Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't Congress told FTC to do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this assumption is that Congress created the FCC and the FTC. Congress defines the roles of these organizations. Congress picked the FTC to create the Do Not Call List. So I don't understand your assertion that the FCC should have done it. The Justice system has no Constitutional right to overrule the Congress on which agency should perform a function.
In the end this may actually be for the best. (Score:4, Insightful)
In such a world there are 50 million plus voters who all support an issue during a time of a very divided government. It's a legislator's wet dream. An easy issue with bi-partisan approval that constituents love. Just the thing to go into re-election trumpeting. Oh and cheap too. When congress gets done with it the DMA may be facing all kinds of restrictions beyond a simple do not call list.
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, use a pay phone.
Re:Free Speech issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, somebody is interested otherwise the calls wouldn't keep coming.
That's why it's an opt-in list. If you're interested, you don't sign up.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, this is America: Land of the Fee, Home of the Paid.
Justice and equality is only for those who can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to pay for it.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the DNC List, but the judge is probably right that it should have come out of the FCC.
I know the government sucks when it comes to effiency but hopefully the FCC can just pick up and run with the FTC's program.
I'm not at all sure that the FCC has the jurisdiction to make this decision. The FCC has a mandate to regulate telecommunications by radio television, wire, satellite and cable. In order to accomplish this they maintain broadcasting and telecommunications divisions. On the broadcasting side of things the FCC has full jurisdiction to decide what type of content is or is not appropriate for broadcast. However, I don't think that the same applies for the content of telephone communications.
The FCC is more concerned with encouraging fair and reasonable pricing of and access to telecommunications networks. The content of communications along these lines is not the FCCs concern. Telemarketing is really an annoying (and in many cases, fraudulent) business practice. The regulation of industries (including the suppression of annoying, fraudulent and illegal business prctices) is part of the mandate of the FTC.
Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't that long ago that the ownership of human beings was considered a stand-up way of doing business in this country. Get over it, and get a different job.
I live in Oklahoma (Score:2, Insightful)
Phone number for the Federal District Court in OKC (Score:2, Insightful)
(My compliments to Dave Barry for the inspiration.)
Re:That took real guts... (Score:2, Insightful)
555-1000
555-1001
555-1002
etc.
Re:Free Speech issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The industry isn't being shut down, 50 million people are simply telling it in advance that they are "not interested." The DMA should be thanking the government for pre-screening leads for them.
Re:Details of the court (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges who try to litigate from their appointed positions need to be reined in.
Re:I lived in the Midwest... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think the morons would recognize the fact that if someone wants to sign up for this list, that means THEY WON'T MAKE A SALE BY CALLING THEM. But no...they have to play the victim like every other half-baked fool in this country.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the 3-judge panel of the 9th circuit which suspended the recall election here in CA. The 11-judge panel unanimously overturned that. Why did the 3-judge panel ignore law and create such a ruling in the first place?
Re:Judges contact info: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am confused... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not speech, its action. Dialing my number and making my phone ring is an ACTION. Just like knocking on my front door. Noone has spoken or expressed anything yet.
Ignore the "no soliciting" sign on my door, face trespassing charges. Ignore the "no soliciting" sign (aka DNC list) on my phone, same thing.
If you say dialing the phone is "speech", then why isn't poking people with sticks "free speech"?
FTC vs. FCC (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC regulates the nation's communications infrastructure. The FTC regulates, in part, how trade is conducted. If overuse of the telephone network's bandwidth were the primary problem created by telemarketing, it might make more sense for the do-not-call list to be in the FCC's domain. But that isn't the problem, so it makes perfect sense to give it to the FTC.
Regardless, as others have said, it's Congress choice, whether it makes sense or not. The only party who appears to be overstepping his authority here is the OK judge.
Besides, as we all know, the FCC is a captive agency-- i.e., it primarily serves the interests of the industry that uses public resources (airwaves, et al.) that the agency was ostensibly created to regulate in the public interest. So, assuming that you want to actually do something in the public interest, it's best not to give the job to the FCC.
Re:You know what I don't understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's these people that telemarketers really, really wants to be able to call, and it's these people who really, really want the do-not-call lists because it takes the pressure off them.
Don't sweat it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overstepped its bounds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. That's not how the law works and it's for a reason. There's a reason why we have a constitution. For example, it would be very easy to get Congress to approve (pick your favorite subject - say anti-abortion) legislation and you will easily find 50 million people who will sign a petition saying they agree with it. That does not trump the (debatable) right of a woman to get an aborotion.
Also, 50 million people signing on to the do-not-call list does not constitute a referendum.
The right thing would be for Congress to pass an actual law within the constitution. The judge simply ruled that the way this rule was enforced was not within the bounds of the law - the judge did not say that if Congress did do it the correct way that it would be against the constitution.
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
Real Civil Liberty issues here (Score:5, Insightful)
The court held that it was "inappropriate" for Congress to have allowed the FTC to interpret the congressional orders on its own, saying it "raises serious constitutional questions."
Recent US Supreme Court decisions have ruled that Do-Not-Call registries are legal, so there is no free speach issue no matter what the DMA wants to argue.
The constitutional issue is the seperation of legislative and executive power. The congress granted the FTC the authority to make rules concerning telemarketing fraud. The court felt that this rule was outside the authority granted by congress. An executive branch agency does not have the ability to make law, but the do have the ability to make the rules used to implement a law. The court held that the FTC overreached, it tried to make law instead of rules.
Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.
It is important to our system of checks and balances that executive rule making authority not be unchecked.
Write, Call or Email Your State's Attorney General (Score:3, Insightful)
I admire the FTC for creating the list, but I also agree with the judge's opinion that the agency overstepped its authority in creating it. Fortunately, several states' attornies general have worked together to create do not call lists that can stand up to court tests.
While I'd like to see this as a federal government project (I can hardly believe that I just wrote that) because it involves interstate communications, it seems like any single federal agency that tries to implement one is going to end up stepping (in a legal sense) on some other agency's toes, something that the telemarketing industry will certainly exploit. But at least it seems to work pretty darned well on a state level.
-h-
Re:Call telemarketer CEOs to chat (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing is, that's not the case. Telemarketing is successful because they reach people who are submissive, insecure, mentally deficient, or elderly -- people who would have a hard time saying "no" to a telemarketer.
If those people start joining the DNC list, a large portion of telemarketers' revenue will go away. (Ahd pesonally I couldn't be happier.)
Jay (=
Re:You know what I don't understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers.
However, there are people who have no interest in telemarketing, but if they are called, they find it very difficult to refuse, end up buying something they don't want, and feel foolish afterwards. For these people, the Do Not Call list is a godsend, as it's a easy way of saying no without being put under pressure. If the people that are most susceptible to hard sell tactics have an easy way out, telemarketers will suffer, and they know it.
Re:Oh the irony (Score:2, Insightful)
National Popular Vote for Bush: 50,456,169
The question of course is WHICH 50 million was 'wrong'
The 50+ million who chose not to exercise their right to vote?
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
What??!!
You mean we shouldn't bother a judge who honestly applies the law -- even if he may not like the outcome --, and should instead ask our Congresspeople to get off their asses and do their jobs?
You mean, it's not the judge's fault that Congress prefers to only pass uncontroversial laws, while leaving the hard and unpopular decisions based on those laws to judges?
Why, you!!!
It shocks and exasperates me to see such a sober and insightful opinon on Slashdot! Please learn to post only knee-jerk opinions and "Beowulf Cluster jokes"; you're not up to our standards here!
Prime Example Why Judges should NOT BE APPOINTED! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't need some idiot in some appointed power back when Lincoln was president, making rulings that slavery is still the way to go.
(yes, fecicious... but still you get the point)
Same thing here.. we have old farts in the system that don't even know how to use a computer, ruling on cases such as Copyright, that affect the lives of people who DO know how to use them.
So instead of this moron judge voting this way because the top two busineses in OK are telemarketers!!!! He should have voted the will of the people 50 million of them, and said FU to them. And he would have, if he was elected. But instead, he's there for good, and could give two craps about what the people think.
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
While it is specifically illegal to threaten a judicial official (ie. higher penalties then for threatening an average citizen) calling a judge at any available number and registering your opinion about their work is entirely legal - though judges might wish it weren't. DO NOT harass this misguided individual - and if you don't know the difference between harassment and simply making a call DON'T do anything, but don't believe that judges are somehow above the law when it comes to public suasion.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah? I'm betting at least 50 million people have chosen Windows over Linux. By the standards of
50 million people most definitely can be wrong, though in this case I would agree they are not.
Re:Details of the court (Score:1, Insightful)
Right. Nothing makes a federal judge quake in his boots like the unwashed masses armed with speed dial. He passed this ruling down because it's the *law*. And pestering a judge is only likely to make him really resentful of the public at large in the future. Do you know anyone who responds well to threats and mob rule? Really?
Why not post something useful like a congressional phone number or two and give people someone useful to talk to. The general populace of slashdot seems to think that vigilantism and mob rule are the best way to go about solving problems.
Corporate America has long figured out that if you want something done you lobby for it and make it the law-of-the-fucking-land.
The technology community for all it's intellectual prowess still can't figure out how to code in politics.
Re:Or something (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only legal, but necessary for the system to work! How can an elected official represent the people if he doesn't know the people's opinion?
Now, strictly speaking, if your not an oklahoma resident, giving this particular judge your opinion doesn't, technically, count. But giving him your opinion may gave YOUR district's judge a clue about what your opinion is.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or something (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, this is a pretty big landmark case (Score:3, Insightful)
This case tests their right to free speech. Corperations have no right to free speech, buisnesses do (the difference being, a corperation has stock, a buisness doesn't because a buisness is run by an owner and hence, derives it's rights from the owner. Read gangs of america, it's free in pdf if you search google.
The reason I didn't sign up is becuase of 1 simple reason. If the list is made useless in this sense meaning nobody can uphold it, guess where it's gonna be sent or rather sold to? It has names, addresses, and phone numbers all ripe for the plucking. Normally they have to go through a phone book or some other service, but this database can be added to other databases to make the databases even more complete. Whupdefucking do.
Plus, the whole "you havta send it in NOW NOW NOW!!!" smelled of all kinds of bullshit. I'll believe it and sign up when I see it.
Re:Phone number for the Federal District Court in (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt that it would have the effect that you want. The best thing to do is write your Representatives, Senators, and President about these issues. Removal of a judge can occur at that level, but not at the district court level.
All that you'd be promoting is one really pissed off court receptionist.
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of decent net connectivity affect rural Oklahoma as much as anywhere else in the US, though in Tulsa, OKC, etc you'll have no problem getting a decent (in my case 3mbps/256kbps) net connection for cheap. On a business level, both WorldCom (yeah yeah) and Williams being in Tulsa meant plenty of carrier infrastructure is in place for fatter net connections.
Cellphone coverage and facilities could do with improvement but they work. Having come from the UK I'm not impressed with the US cellphone setup anyway, but that's another flamewar.
Analogue and digital cable TV are readily available though it's quite sad how even with the hundreds of channels offered by the latter, there's still nothing decent on half the time.
Good things about Oklahoma
Reasons to go elsewhere
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:50 million numbers, not people (Score:4, Insightful)
The judge is just making everyone follow the law. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the points of both parties involved. There were two conflicting issues in law, one a California constitutional issue, the other a federal constitutional issue, the Equal Protection Clause.
There is a profound problem with US law right now. When voters are deprived of their civil rights, their is no avenue for remedy. Courts will overturn elections due to ballot fraud. But they won't overturn elections when hundreds of thousands of Americans are being deprived of their civil liberty of voting.
The pre-emptive challenge of DELAYING elections when their is a known and proven problem with voting and counting apparatus is a reasonable strategy to FORCE changes in the system. Their is no remedy possible "after the fact".
Deep down their is another issue at play here. The Bush camp scurrisly used the Equal Protection Clause to support the widespread dis-enfranchisement of voters in Florida. Many civil liberties organizations are reasonably pissed about the ultimate verdict (which was really a non-verdict) and are intent on hammering this judicial point until the conservative advocate judges of the Federalist Society are forced to yield their shaky legal interpretation.
Re:Real Civil Liberty issues here (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.
According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], there is activity on the House side to do just that:
I've listed the members of Energy & Commerce below. Members of Congress do care what their constituents think, and if they hear from enough of them, they are less likely to listen to lobbyists for the direct marketing industry. If you are a constituent of one of the members below, please do one of the following (in decreasing order of impact):
If you're not sure who represents you, go here [house.gov] and type in your Zip code where it says "Find Your Representative."
If they don't hear from you, they will think you don't care.
Here are the members of this committee (as listed in The Almanac of American Politics [nationaljournal.com]):
Majority (31 R): Tauzin (LA), Chmn.; Bilirakis (FL), Barton (TX), Upton (MI), Stearns (FL), Gillmor (OH), Greenwood (PA), Cox (CA), Deal (GA), Burr (NC), Vice Chmn.; Whitfield (KY), Norwood (GA), Cubin (WY), Shimkus (IL), Wilson (NM), Shadegg (AZ), Pickering (MS), Fossella (NY), Blunt (MO), Buyer (IN), Radanovich (CA), Bass (NH), Pitts (PA), Bono (CA), Walden (OR), Terry (NE), Fletcher (KY), Ferguson (NJ), Rogers (MI), Issa (CA), Otter (ID).
Minority (26 D): Dingell (MI), RMM; Waxman (CA), Markey (MA), Hall (TX), Boucher (VA), Towns (NY), Pallone (NJ), Brown (OH), Gordon (TN), Deutsch (FL), Rush (IL), Eshoo (CA), Stupak (MI), Engel (NY), Wynn (MD), Green (TX), McCarthy (MO), Strickland (OH), DeGette (CO), Capps (CA), Doyle (PA), John (LA), Allen (ME), Davis (FL), Schakowsky (IL), Solis (CA).
Re:this makes sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not do business with telemarketers. I do not give to charities that bother me over the phone. Why would they NOT want to know that they are wasting their time when they call me? I don't pay my phone bill every month so some asswipe can bother me. They can advertise to me through the mail; that way they'll have to use their tiny little brains to figure out who might actually want their product, and I'll have something to use to help start my fireplace.
If you can't see the difference between a "do not call" list and making telemarketing illegal, you're not too bright.
Oh, and BTW, a judge isn't supposed to rule because of how it will affect the industry, (s)he's supposed to rule based on something called the "law".
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought
Last I looked, that is 50,000,000 phones, *not* 50M people. Big difference. Our phone here = 4 people.
Now, given that we live in a democratic republic, and forgive me for being blunt, but the people behind 50M phones ARE THE LAW. I'm sorry, but that's likely well over half, perhaps over 2/3 of the country. If we want the fucking do not call list, give us the fucking do not call list. To hell with the DMA.