FTC Rules Outlawing Robocalls Go Into Effect Next Week 277
coondoggie writes "Nearly a year after announcing the plan, new Federal Trade Commission
rules prohibiting most robocalls are set to take effect Tuesday, Sept. 1. With the rules, prerecorded commercial telemarketing robocalls will be prohibited, unless the telemarketer has obtained permission in writing from consumers who want to receive such calls. Hopefully the rules will go a long way to helping consumers eat dinner in peace without being interrupted by amazingly annoying telemarketer blather or in this case prerecorded blather. The requirement is part of amendments to the agency's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) that were announced a year ago. After September 1, sellers and telemarketers who transmit prerecorded messages to consumers who have not agreed in writing to accept such messages will face penalties of up to $16,000 per call."
Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Insightful)
...or did they make sure to keep that loophole in there for themselves again...
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Informative)
However for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said. Ultimately consumers may get some help from state legislatures as many are regulating or looking to pass laws for more control over automated or robocall computer-generated phone-calling campaigns. One group, the National Political Do Not Contact Registry [stoppoliticalcalls.org] is campaigning to outlaw political robocalling altogether.
Thats actually pretty funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!
What. (Score:3, Insightful)
But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!
Yeah. Because nothing that anyone says using a machine -- say to aid in disseminating their thoughts to many more people than they could talk to in person -- is actual protected speech!
Now report to the reeducation center, citizen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech
But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!
As much as I hate robocalls, I think a prerecorded message is analogous to either a bullhorn or a prerecorded television ad. So, if "vote for me" is protected when a human says it, then it should be when he records it and transmits it electronically.
Part of me is smirking at the idea of some police officer telling Steven Hawking "You have the right to free speech, but that voice thingy you use doesn't"
Re:Thats actually pretty funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither bullhorn nor TV ad are allowed to enter into my home without my consent. It is practical for me to leave off (or to not have) a TV. But a phone provides essential services (including emergency services) that cannot function if it is turned off. The bullhorn, actually, can be annoying by coming through my window, but in fact, the state has retained latitude to regulate that problem through noise control regulations and requirements of permit for public demonstration.
The allowance of political calls (under the guise of free speech) simply reflects legislative selfishness...a willingness to enforce just behavior upon all but themselves. It reflects the self-serving, less-than-high ethics that characterizes all but the fewest of politicians. They rationalize it away under a Greater Good theory, in this case some abstract virtue of greater public participation in politics. But that's just a cover fib, their real motive being to avail themselves of political advantage through any and all legal means. If you want to see how much they care about public participation, check their records on trying to help people of opposing parties to participate in politics.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a election last year for a state representative, I voted against someone because they robocalled me. Thankfully, they lost the election. I wrote to them after the fact and told them why I voted for their opponent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your attitude just encourages joe-jobbing though. I think there was some of that in this last election, with robocallers calling people 10 times in a night, claiming to be for Obama.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely fraudulent political calls can't be exempted from the new law?
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Interesting)
WE NEED AUSTRALIAN BALLOTING. Then we could pass votes like this, without feeling like we "wasted" our vote on no-name politicians:
(1) Harry Browne - Libertarian
(2) Chuck Baldwin - Constitution
(3) Ted Weill - Reform
(4) McCain - R
(5) ---
BUT since I don't want to waste my vote, rather than vote for the first three which I already know will lose, I vote my fourth choice which is not the best man - just the one with the best chance of winning.
It's worth noting that during the first couple presidential elections, the Congress selected the president, and they used a process very similar to Australian balloting (casting multiple votes until somebody came-out on top). It would be very easy for the States to adopt this kind of ballot.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Interesting)
WE NEED AUSTRALIAN BALLOTING. Then we could pass votes like this, without feeling like we "wasted" our vote on no-name politicians:
With instant runoff voting, you can only safely vote for third party candidates if those candidates have no chance of winning. If one of them gets enough support to garner, say, 30% of the vote, he'll have drawn most of his support from the major candidate to whom he is ideologically closest, giving the election to the major candidate from whom he is ideologically furthest.
So IRV still requires voters to vote "strategically", unless the third party candidates are all too weak to have a chance at wining.
Better options are approval voting, Condorcet voting, or range voting. None of these are strategy-free, but none of them create situations where it makes sense to vote for a less-preferred candidate over your most-preferred candidate, unlike IRV or (much, much worse, plurality rules, the system we use).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm glad you mentioned range voting. I Googled it and found this site: http://rangevoting.org/ [rangevoting.org]
This, to me, is the single dumbest thing about our democracy: that our current voting system makes you vote for who you can tolerate and think can win, as opposed to who you actually like.
I encourage everyone to visit the link above to read about a better voting system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Robocalls = robopoliticians
The problem is, I'm not sure that a House Member can adequately represent their constituents. If you look at the Constitution (original) you can see that the number of people represented by a House Member was 30,000, which seems like a reasonable that one person can represent adequately.
The small city I live in, would have 3 Representatives just for itself, which would probably represent the varied intere
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Robocalls says something about the character of the candidate.
That's only true if the robocall actually came from the candidate (or his campaign organization).
As others have pointed out, many political robocalls come from a candidate's opponent, in an attempt to get voters sufficiently annoyed at the candidate to vote against him/her. Unless you can verify that a robocall is actually from the candidate, it tells you nothing at all about the candidate.
Fraud is a routine part of many (perhaps most) political campaigns. It's routine to try to get voters to accept lies about your opponent. This is just one of many ways to do so. Google for "push poll" for another popular method.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Insightful)
They left the loophole open. "Call from political candidates are considered protected speech". Really, what did you expect?
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Insightful)
They left the loophole open. "Call from political candidates are considered protected speech". Really, what did you expect?
system is broken. time for overhaul.
free speech is when I ask you a question and you are allowed to answer and not fear for your life.
free speech is NOT the right to call me and force some stupid idea down my throat.
there IS a difference and its not subtle, either.
in no reasoning person's mind could a robocall, or ANY kind of political call, be called 'protected'.
if that's protected, I should be able to call a judge on his personal phone line and complain about his judgements. call my congresscritters on their personal lines and complain and 'sell' them on my way of doing things.
they want access to us? give us parity and we'll talk. so to speak.
no? not going to work that way?
time to redo the system. maybe from scratch, if that's what it takes.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be embarrassed for not getting politics shoved down your throat. You can hang up on a robot, and they wouldn't even know.
I think this is the wrong way to go about this. They should require every line used for marketing calls to show up on caller ID as "Marketing", and every call for political reasons to show up as "Political". Then people don't have to answer at all. You can add in a registry to keep people from calling, or you can require phone companies to block numbers with that name on the ID to a given number if you really want. The phone company idea would be my preference, as it's really easy to block numbers on our AT&T wireless lines on the net, and there should be no reason you can't do it on a land line just as easily.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only problem with "just hanging up on them" is when the robocaller ties up your line for the duration of its message, whether you've hung up or not.
I got one from the NDP during the last Canadian election. I picked up the phone and it said "Hi, this is Jack Layton and I need your support..." blah blah blah, so I hung up on it right away. I picked up the phone about a minute later to make a call and it was still going on and on. I tried dialling random numbers on the phone to make it shut up and it wouldn't work. I hung up and tried about a minute later and I got a dial tone.
I recorded all the details about the call that I could and wrote the phone company and told them that this call from the NDP tied up my line and I'd like to file a complaint about it because I might have needed to dial 911 or something during that time and would have been unable to do so, never mind being unable to use the phone at all, which we pay for, not the NDP. Someone from the phone company got back to me fairly quickly asking me for a bit more information and then a technician called me and said that he had just made some changes to our line to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. We haven't had a robocaller for a while now as far as I know. I don't know what he did exactly, but I'd like to know. Maybe someone familiar with the phone system could shed some light on it.
I also added the IC SIT [wikipedia.org] (disconnected/non-existant number tone) to the beginning of our answering machine message in the hopes that it would reduce the number of robocallers and telemarketers that phone during the day. I know quite a few of them are unfortunately ignoring it because too many people caught on to the trick.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Informative)
They enabled "disconnect on hangup" on your line. If you have a burglar alarm installed that uses your phone line, the alarm company will arrange for the same feature.
Traditionally, POTS lines aren't disconnected until both sides go on-hook. With disconnect on hangup, the line is disconnected when one side goes on-hook, though it may take up to 10 seconds.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Assuming you have the number, you can. There are ramifications if it's threatening or if they ask you to stop and you still do it - just like these other scenarios should - but there aren't any laws against it (AFAIK - someone may correct me on that).
Now the reverse - do you think y
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Insightful)
> are allowed to answer and not fear for your life.
Oh, it's a bit more than that. Free speech is when you can stand on on the sidewalk downtown and tell your political ideas to anyone who will listen, hand out pamphlets to anyone who will take them, hold rallies where five hundred like-minded people all get together in a public place...
I am even willing to accept unsolicited political phonecalls, as long as the number you're calling is a publicly listed number and not listed in the DNC registry, and provided it's a human doing the calling.
But machine autocalling with a pre-recorded message is something else. The objection here is NOT to what you are saying. The objection here is to the fact that you are wasting my time *only*, and not spending any of your own time to do so. It doesn't matter if your message is commercial or political, because we're fundamentally not talking about what you're allowed to *say*.
And the do-not-call registry should apply to all unsolicited calls. Ordinarily a politician can knock on your door and, if you answer, ask if he can have a moment of your time to tell you about $issue. A salesman can do the same thing. But if you put a sign on your door asking them not to do so, they're supposed to respect that. The DNC registry serves the same purpose as that sign on the door.
This is not a free speech issue. They can say whatever they want, in public. Nobody's going to arrest or penalize them for what they say. (Well, we might choose to vote for the other guy, but that goes with the territory when you run for public office.) It's not about speech. It's about privacy, and the right of the individual home-owner to choose who and what he allows into his home.
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Robocalls from "Americans United for Jesus and Kittens and Hey Did You Know My Opponent Loves Pedophiles?" annoy me; but trying to weasel-word your way around freedom of speech(freedom of explicitly political speech, no less) based on technological quibbling is Bad Idea.
"Sure, you have the right to speak, go ahead. However, I don't remember any 'right to have a packet encoded representation of speech make it to the other end of the wire' in the constitution..." "Sorry citizen, freedom of the press applies only to impact printed documents, don't you know what 'press' means? Inkjet or laser printed subversive literature will get you 20 to life..."
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:4, Interesting)
> freedom of the press applies only to impact printed documents,
> don't you know what 'press' means? Inkjet or laser printed
> subversive literature will get you 20 to life...
That's a straw man. You can print all the junk you want on your own inkjet printer, or on your own laser printer, or one that you rent... But *I* get to say what you can print on *my* printer, capische?
Re:Political robocalls too? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about calling from another country? I'm from Europe, but I've heard that the telemarketers solved most of their "problems" by simply using call centers from other countries. They haven't done anything, except outlawing robocalls from US telemarketers to US residents. One country down, 202 [wikipedia.org] to go.
Can I have the # for... (Score:2, Funny)
Won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most annoying types (scams mostly) this won't matter any. There's already a "Do not call" mechanism that's ignored. The legitimate ones will obey, the rest will just continue on.
Yes, it gives some teeth for when you actually catch them, but for the millions of us who have been getting the "Your credit rating will be affected!!!" calls lately, I doubt it will make any difference to our evening meals.
Re:Won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
They just call from another country to get around the no call lists anyway so you're right.
Re:Won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really funny is that it goes both ways too.
We have a Do Not Call register in Australia as well. You can sign up for it here: https://www.donotcall.gov.au/ [donotcall.gov.au]
When it was first introduced, telemarketing calls pretty much stopped dead. For a while. But after a while they started coming back. And funnily enough all the people on the other end had American accents now (or were pre-recorded Americans). And indeed I asked one of them once where he was located, and he said Texas.
Of course, the Australian Do Not Call register only applies to calls placed in Australia. So they got around it by setting up operations in the US and calling back to Australia. I imagine they use some form of VoIP for the international leg otherwise the phone bills would be obscene.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're correct. There are a few companies who will (http://www.openaccessmarketing.com/) do the telemarketing on the cheap. Not only will they call from the USA to Australia, but they'll also provide even cheaper telemarketing from the offices in Manila. All managed from the USA. However, the ACMA still control who is called by regulating the lists, and who has access to them. If the original contact list originated from within Australia, it falls under the ACMA. If that list contains numbers on their DNC l
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Won't matter (Score:4, Informative)
Not true. The real problem is that enough people don't complain and their is a level of apathy involved.
The FCC and Attorney Generals go after the companies providing the products being sold (more specifically those who profit) and not the call centers. When you get one of these calls you need to listen to them. Ask them questions about their products. What is the name of the product? It's manufacturer? Try to get some information.
Information is the real weapon. Once you call the FCC to complain you will be able to provide them with what they need to successfully identify the company and levy fines against them.
There is no getting around the DNC regardless of the location. It's just that not enough people are cooperating with the FCC to hurt them enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The product name and manufacturer's name are not necessarily the information they need. Most manufacturer's don't distribute their products themselves so it won't be them hiring the telemarketers. Now they should have a list of distributors for the FCC to investigate. Also the companies can be just importing the stuff. Now you could block that company from importing but they would just start another.
It's a no win battle as long as consumers continue to buy from telemarkers and spammers. They wouldn't do it
Re:Won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Junk phone calls are just a small fraction of what they were before the list, I'm surprised how effective it has been. So, I'm all for closing remaining loopholes.
Do Not Call Has Worked Perfectely For Me (Score:3, Informative)
"There's already a "Do not call" mechanism that's ignored"
I haven't gotten a single call on my mail line since the day I put it on the Do Not Call List.
Recently I got another number and couldn't figure out why I was suddenly getting unsolicited calls. Then I remembered the DNC List and once again haven't gotten a single unwanted call.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do Not Call Has Worked Perfectely For Me (Score:5, Interesting)
The best way is to make it matters legally. Give them your credit card number, the one you don't use often or just sign one up just for this. Let them charge it, then take it up to the card center and police and say you have a lead on someone using your credit card illegally. If it's no traceable, you can't prove enough to charge my card either. If it is, you get the fuckers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What will happen is that the bank which issued your credit car will eat the charge and you will never hear anything more of it. In fact, even if they do track down the perps, they won't share the information with you. They tend to be really tight-lipped about anything like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it will mess with your credit rating. Having half-a-dozen cards stolen over the course of a few years is a very good indication to banks that you're a good credit risk to a bank, even if it's merely a risk of your wasting their time and money this way.
It is even worse than that.... (Score:3, Informative)
This appears to me that it will weaken the existing prohibition against this practice by providing the "in writing" loophole. Calling without a real person on the other end was already illegal except in limited circumstances due to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) [gpo.gov]
[...]
(1) Prohibitions
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or
any person outside the United States if the recipient is
Re:It is even worse than that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
For fuck's sake, a contract isn't an atomic sacred unit of holy marketology. It's just a piece of paper.
The problem is Common Law, which holds that a contract is almost as sacred a the Ten Commandments except in limited circumstances. Courts have long rules that many sorts of contract are invalid if one party is deceived. Long form contracts with surprisingly asymmetric benefits to the drafted of the contract are a relatively modern chapter in the long history of contracts design to deceive. In practice, nobody reads the fine print. Saying "well, people should" is counterproductive because you know in practice that very few people will. By that logic, you can reduce all law to "well, people really shouldn't hurt each other."
What matters is how the contract is commonly understood, not what it actually says. It's high time for contracts of adhesion [wikipedia.org] to be held to much stricter standards. Specifically,
That means that if a cell phone company, for instance, claims that their contract allows them to give your number to telemarketers, that clause is unenforceable unless the writer of the contract can show, via an impartial third party poll, that common people understand the contract to permit that right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general I'd agree with your post, but perhaps take it a step further. It's not just that nobody reads the "fine print", the real problem is that nobody can really understand the fine print unless they go to law school and study contracts. Not many people who read the contract all the way through will understand that clauses 2 and 6 puts them over a barrel, but clause 10 is so ridiculous that no court in the land will enforce it, and you can agree to it to your heart's content but you're not actually boun
Re:This will be interesting for me (Score:2)
Over the past couple of years or so, I've gotten probably a few hundred robocalls from about five different sources. I await in anticipation to see if any of these drop off the radar as a result of the new law.
But... but... but... (Score:5, Funny)
Governmunt regulation is bad and socialist and communist and will make our children weak and effeminate. I know it's true because Ronald Raygun told me so. Why does the FTC hate America?
RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!
Re: (Score:2)
Government regulation is often needed. Government services almost never are. Go ahead and regulate, but don't create more offices and busywork programs.
Definition of "in writing"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Presumably, "opt-in" counts as "in writing", and my library will continue to robocall to announce that my book on hold is available. But on the flip side, I can see all sorts of obscure checkboxes when you order online that enable robocalls should you not notice and check/uncheck them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. I somehow highly doubt "in writing" means actually writing a physical letter, or even personally writing an email. It'll be more along the line of "you must accept the license agreement where the telemarketing clause is buried on page 281. Bonus points if those license agreements you "sign" make you expressly grant the right to the provider to extend your "consent" to third parties (which may then do the same), and where each party may modify the agreement at any time without notification, which yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since that is an entity you have a pre-existing relationship with, I don't think they'd be blocked anyway. Just like I'm sure you'll still receive automated collections calls from creditors you're past due with. They aren't telemarketers making cold calls.
Unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)
Scumbags who use robocalls don't care about laws or reputations. Most of the products they peddle are outright scams or at the very least a bad deal for customers.
The perpetrators will set up shop offshore and evade detection. This law, just like CAN-SPAM, will make no difference at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Make a law that says that any product company advertised through spam/robocalls will be investigated and if found in violation of spam/call rules will be fined. That'll stop the contracting out of spamming duties to offshore/multiple shell companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Jobs [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is a fine of $16k if caught. That's a lot of money, don't you think?
What I am concerned about is browsewraps, and whether those count as written permission.
Re:scumbags don't call me, but politicians do (Score:4, Insightful)
scumbags don't call me, but politicians do
You contradict yourself.
Re:scumbags don't call me, but politicians do (Score:5, Funny)
No, you do. A "scumbag" is a failed sociopath. We call the successful ones "CEO", "Hedge Fund Manager", and "Sir".
Re:scumbags don't call me, but politicians do (Score:4, Funny)
No, you do. A "scumbag" is a failed sociopath. We call the successful ones "CEO", "Hedge Fund Manager", and "Sir".
TRIPLE KILL!!!
loopholes (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that any language they put in the bill to protect mass "information only" calls, can also be used as justification by clever spammers. "But we weren't trying to sell anything... we are trying to educate prequalified members of the public on this issue, and were merely pointing them to our web site filled with articles from experts and offer them the opportunity to join our community of interested citizens absolutely free of charge."
So.. what's the going rate for a callcenter in... (Score:4, Interesting)
So.. what's the going rate for a callcenter in... well, what's the cheapest place nowadays?
Paying somebody to call a bunch of numbers, regurgitate a preconceived message, then transfer to the appropriate office if the called person takes the bait... can't be all -that- expensive* and circumvents the 'pre-recorded' bit of a 'robocall', right?
If -only- that bit is what is ruled against, then an automated dialer can still at least only transfer those who answer the phone to the poor sod with the aforementioned job, too.
Surely a loophole can't be that big?
* more expensive than a completely automated dealie, of course, but the above is, I presume, the way they did this -before- such technology was available..
Re: (Score:2)
If they already have a call center in the cheapest place, I can guarrantee they don't care about the pre-recorded law as they aren't in the US.
Re:So.. what's the going rate for a callcenter in. (Score:2)
Yeah, this strikes me as a roundabout way to make telemarketing calls more expensive. Why not tax them instead, whether they're pre-recorded or not?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because we only adopt "market-based" solutions when they benefit the existing oligarchs. Putting a fair price on a shared resource in order to establish an efficient market is SOCIALIST AND THEREFORE EVIL.
Re: (Score:2)
Price fixing and taxation are not the same. Twisting the terminology to bash people you disagree with only makes you look deceptive. On another note, who are the oligarchs in charge of telemarketing?
Hrmm (Score:5, Funny)
Happy Dude is not going to be happy.
is there still a so-called non-profit loophole? (Score:2)
in fact, the last 3 or 4 days (strange coincidence) I've been getting calls that ID themselves as 'sbc messaging' (calif). my answering machine (real actual one, not a phone-company service) picks up and takes their message. I get home and play back the recordings and they are *just* "we're sorry.". and that's all they say!
wtf?
really. wtf? what purpose is that? chew up my 'tape' space? (no I'm not literally tape-based, just a figure of speech, y'know).
so, I try calling back since they did leave an ac
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is kind of a pain in the ass to set up and you need some specialized hardware (FXO/FXS card or a SIP gateway such as t
Re: (Score:2)
yes, this should be actually part of a spec for 'usability'. you shouldn't have to hack at caller-id strings just to get phone privacy.
I do wonder; for those that call and you've programmed the middle-box not to even pass the calls thru (let it ring), do they eventually give up and assume 'no one's there'? or do they keep calling no matter what? just curious.
Fine print (Score:5, Informative)
Ah.
You can expect the "permission" to be buried in the fine print of phone contracts, software licenses, and the like. And be sure to remember to uncheck that "share your information with third parties" box.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and we can easily circumvent this by writing down with your pen on the same contract paper stating that using any information beyond the scope of this transaction will result on violation of terms and hence termination of contract without cause.
Make a photocopy of the contract.
This means, if the Telco robocalls you, send a copy of the contract and tell them the contract is over and you will be switching the provider.
Shit! (Score:2)
Well, thanks folks.
Those assholes with the robocallers are now going to phoning Canada with their scams, because it's out of jurisdiction. We saw it with the do not call list, and now...
Hell. I might just stop answering my phone entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell. I might just stop answering my phone entirely.
You answer your phone? I answer my phone for my immediate family. Period. Everyone else who bothers calling get's my voice mail--and they know that. If I ever get a call from spam it goes on my spam list. If people want to get in touch with me, they need to learn how to use email. I simply don't get bothered any more.
Questions you may have: (Q) what if it is an emergency? (A) dial 9-1-1 for emergencies; (Q) but my land line doesn't have all those fancy features (A) turn off your land line ringer.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, but they are quite a bit friendlier.
capcha time? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm thinking it might be time.
something that ensures a human is at the other end, and a thinking one, at that. yeah.
phone spam is getting to the point where we need blacklists and whitelists. wildcards on names, numbers in caller-id. or even trapping on lack of caller-id.
arms race they want? we can meet that challenge.
but its a damned shame we've let ourselves get to this point ;(
Re: (Score:2)
phone spam is getting to the point where we need blacklists and whitelists.
Like this [phonespamfilter.com]?
Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
All animals are equal... (Score:2)
it's only that some are more equal than others:
However for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said.
Great (Score:2)
Robomail (Score:2)
Robocalls are worse than unsolicited email (Score:4, Insightful)
Our robocalls are in Spanish (Score:5, Funny)
That wouldn't be so bad, except no one here speaks Spanish. So I have no idea if it's a bill collector, a telemarkter, or a candidate running for office in a Spanish speaking area.
All the Spanish I know is basically ordering a beer and asking for directions to the bathroom, so I know they're not selling Dos Equis or directions to the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
.
All the Spanish I know is basically ordering a beer ...
"El queso está viejo y pútrido. Dónde está el sanitario?" [/obscure]
Re: (Score:2)
...or an area wide zombie alert.
Penalities (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't consider paying a fine (in this case, $16K/incident) to be much of a punishment. Sure, the robocaller stops bothering me, but once the robocaller is fined the government keeps it all. Every time a robocaller calls me, I'm the one who is inconvenienced, so why don't I get anything for helping to bring one of these guys down? It seems to me that if I report the number and it gets successfully prosecuted, I should get a cut of the reward. You can take the $16K fine and split it up equally among the people who reported that same number, and everyone wins.
It will never happen that way, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but that's $16k you don't have to pay in taxes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the FTC is already funded with tax money as part of the budget. The 16K is just free money to them. Do you really think they should get a $16k bonus per incident to do what they should be doing anyway? Robocallers have gotten more and more prevalent in recent years and no one does anything until it becomes a huge problem. It's not like they are funded entirely by penalties... if they were, they would come down hard on every robocaller they could
Re: (Score:2)
So that's $16k more worth of FTCish activities they can do. I fail to see the problem. It's still redistributing wealth from those who irritate society to those who can benefit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there's no way to be sure of that. Knowing the government, The money would probably be skimmed off someplace else. It still doesn't do me any good.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Either 1) the money goes to the FTC, and funds its activities, or 2) the money goes to the general fund, where it can offset taxes (or debt). Or are you claiming that money the government receives in fines is somehow specially vulnerable to embezzlement?
Or are you an idiot devoteé of Grover Norquist who believes that a dollar for the government is a dollar for evil?
Re: (Score:2)
2008 [washingtonpost.com].
Is this trespassing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me say this first: I'm an aussie and (thankfully) we don't have the issues that you guys seem to have in the U.S. with all these telemarketers.
Could not the whole telemarketing thing be put under a trespassing code, rather than a freedom of speech one? As far as I'm aware (which is not at all), you guys can put a sign on your front gate that says 'No Trespassing' which will stop any door-to-door salesmen. This of course doesn't stop someone standing at your front gate shouting slogans and the what-not.
H
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, at least, a No Trespassing sign does NOT provide any protection from door to door salesmen, con artists, Jehovah's Witnesses or ... wait, I'm repeating myself aren't I? Anyway, they're entitled to come to your door and nag you until you tell them to bugger off. Only then, if they refuse to leave, are they trespassing. Even when you've got a flip up cover over the doorbell that says "No Sales Persons, No Canvassing" they flip up the bloody thing then say two things, in order:
1. I didn't see the
Overrulled by the telcos (Score:2, Interesting)
The government can make all the regs they want, the telcoes render then null and void. We already have plenty of rules against junk faxes, violating the do not call registery, outright scam calls, etc. Now what do you do when you get one? The ones you would want to make pay always either blank out the caller-id or put a totally bogus (I get a lot of 1-555-* myself) number into the field. So that means the telco would have to give you the identity of the caller. Obviously THEY know who it is, they have
VoIP and International calling (Score:2)
With VoIP technologies and techniques, how long before people attempt to skirt the rules by operating outside of U.S. borders?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say about ... minus 10 years from now.
They've been doing that for aaaages.
senators still immune? (Score:2)
Last I looked, the senators took pains to draft into the bill that they themselves were exempt from the no-robocall rule for their political campaigns. (and my phone did ring off the hook with campaign robocalls in the last few elections too) Is this still the case?
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is... (Score:2)
waranty expirations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not add robotexts to the Bill? (Score:2)
Has anyone else noticed? (Score:2)
... that there are seemingly a number of surprisingly 'good' things (for the people) coming out of our various federal departments recently?
I'm curious if this has to do with better appointments to tops, better pressures, coincidence, or maybe a seriously interesting change for the better in government....
I doubt the last one, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it's because all the frontlash/backlash about everything and everybody in politics these days. I think people woke up a little to politics and what's going on in government. Before, things were "good enough," now everything is in an upheaval and people are paying attention.