Don't Want a Phonebook? Give Up Your Privacy 357
newscloud writes "Seattle will soon shut down its popular phonebook opt-out website as a result of a costly settlement with Yellow Pages publishers. Going forward, the only way to stop unwanted phonebook deliveries will be to visit the industry's opt out site and provide them with your personal information. They will share it with their clients, most of whom are direct marketing agencies, who in turn commit not to use it improperly. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled in October that The Yellow Pages represent protected free speech of corporations (including Canada's Yellow Media Inc.); defending and settling the lawsuit cost Seattle taxpayers $781,503. The city said the program's popularity led to a reduction of 2 million pounds of paper waste annually."
corporations are not people (Score:3, Informative)
Corporations are not people, and do not get natural rights such as the right to free speech. [movetoamend.org]
Community erffort (Score:3, Informative)
Collect all the unwanted phonebooks and deliver them to the phone company regional office, preferably piled up in front of the door.
Profitability? (Score:5, Informative)
If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?
Unless people actually *are* reading it. If so, then how is this a waste?
And we're not going to run out of trees any faster than we'll run out of potatoes. Trees used for paper are grown in farms [blogspot.com], and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.) Paper production isn't the reason for decreasing numbers of trees, and recycling paper is a huge waste of time and resources.
The only reason there are fewer trees in the world (and not in the US btw, the number of trees we have in the US has been steadily growing for decades now) is because jungle territory is being cut down to make way for real-estate.
That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.
It won't work, either (Score:5, Informative)
We attempted to opt-out of Yellow Pages deliveries in our local area in California, but it doesn't work. The guys who throw these things on everyone's front porch do not care whether you are on the list or not. I'm not even sure that they have a list. You will still get phone books.
Re:File a police complaint for littering (Score:5, Informative)
This has already been tested in court against KKK pamphlets... The government has no power to restrict the distribution of racist pamphlets, or for that matter, phone books, just because you don't like them.
Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.
Re:Community erffort (Score:5, Informative)
They get them to. By the pallet. We don't want them any more than the public does. They used to drop them off at everyones desks until it became such a common complaint that the facilities guys receive the pallet, never even unwrap it and push it strait into the dumpster. Phonebooks are created and distributed by a select few companies who lobby local officials to keep decades old laws in place that require phone companies continue to supply them with data and allow the delivery of their "product"
Remember: Phonebooks don't come from the phone company. They are separate entities. Some are owned by phone companies in part or whole, but rarely is the phone-book you received produced by your actual phone company.
Re:Only really useful for disasters or power outag (Score:4, Informative)
But, recently there have been issues where we lost power + internet/data, yet will had access to a phone. In which case, I guess it's useful then.
If you've still got cell service -- even if (especially if) you don't have data service -- text your query to 466453 ('GOOGLE') and get an answer by SMS.
Re:File a police complaint for littering (Score:4, Informative)
Probably because the firms contract out to independent workers(read transient workers) to place these signs. They probably have written or verbal instructions not to place signs in any public space, which the firms then use to avoid prosecution. The people being paid some fraction of a dollar sign will be liable to the prosecution. But then how do we get them, and how do they pay?
The yellow pages are certainly the same way. The contractors have to deliver to every house. They are probably spot checked. If I put a sign saying that anything placed on my lawn will be subject to a $500 clean up fee will I be able to collect? Probably not from the yellow pages, even if the small claims court would allow such a thing. No I would have to hire someone to track down the transient worker, maybe put a lein against the truck that was used in the crime, and then what. Not much.
They way to stop the telephone directory waste is to stop using them. If it was not still a relevant advertising model, then firms would not be paying to advertise in it. Firms must be getting leads from these directories, otherwise why would they pay to advertise. It will be a problem that corrects itself in the next generation.
Re:File a police complaint for littering (Score:1, Informative)
Trespassing, then.
You don't own your mailbox in the USA.
1. They don't put the phone book in your mailbox, they put it on your doorstep.
2. It is illegal for anyone but the resident or the USPS carrier to open someone's mailbox.
Re:File a police complaint for littering (Score:3, Informative)
It is illegal to post signs in public space
That'll be why the suggestion was "Post a sign on your property".
Re:File a police complaint for littering (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, IANAL.
If you have read the decision on the "Do Not Cal" list given by the tenth circuit court, you'd see that the court used a three-prong test to determine constitutionality:
1) The court found that the do-not-call registry addressed the governmental interests in protecting the privacy of an individual within their homes and from abusive and coercive solicitation.
2) The list affected the sources of the majority of the consumer complaints that fell within the governmental agency's jurisdiction while allowing calls from political action committees, charitable organizations, etc, (The law targeted a particular type of abuser).
3) The list didn't restrict more speech than necessary since it was opt-in.
Since unsolicited phonebooks aren't a threat to ones privacy, coercive and does't immediately initiate a sales transaction between the phonebook distributor and the resident, it doesn't satisfy the first prong of the test.