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."
Grrrrr..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:5, Funny)
Just because we don't have smog, incessant traffic, extremely dense population, and 30% higher retail prices DOESN'T mean we're backwards.
Apparently, along with smog, traffic, high population density, and high prices, Oklahomans also lack a sense of humor.
(Maybe it's because Will Rogers is gone?)
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually cheap to live here. I'm in Tulsa, and a $12/hr job can get you a decent apartment, car, etc. Of course this whole thing is going to collapse with the outsourcing to India...
And yes, many Tulsans take things way too seriously. It's because we have nothing else to do!
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:5, Funny)
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:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Oh the irony (Score:5, Funny)
This is just so delicious. Year 2000 USA Election Statistics [sdtars.com]
National Popular Vote for Gore: 50,996,116
National Popular Vote for Bush: 50,456,169
The question of course is WHICH 50 million was 'wrong' ;-)
Re:Grrrrr..... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a opening line to a horror movie trailer: The Night of the Telemarketers.
A plan that worked once... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's slashdot the Direct Marketing Association. Their number is 1-800-969-6566. They PAY when people call their 800 number. Call them. Get ahold of a customer service rep, and ask to talk to their supervisor. Offer to sell them something (a beer can, a lawnmower, the DeCSS code, something). Every minute you talk to them they pay for it.
They've just said that they have the right to call us, so that naturally must mean we can call them, right? With any luck they'll be slashdotted before 3pm.
Re:A plan that worked once... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of the call showing up on YOUR bill, it shows up on THEIRS.
Congratulations, you just gave them your phone number. Be sure to start practicing your "I'm happy with my long-distance service" speech right now.
Re:A plan that worked once... (Score:4, Funny)
Nah. I'll stick with my tried and true plan of talking with them, getting them to talk to me as long as they can, then getting stubborn
then sounding positive again
then stubborn once more
then positive
start to ask about options
keep them on for as long as I can, smile and joke with them, get them comfortable
Then launch into abuse. It's fun, it keeps them talking to me more and makes their call success rate lower, AND makes them feel bad. Makes me feel good, and maybe they'll go get a REAL JOB
Re:A plan that worked once... (Score:5, Funny)
she replied 'no problem, we'll be here till 5'
Re:A plan that worked once... (Score:4, Funny)
That took real guts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or something (Score:3, Insightful)
Or has an enormously inflated sense of self-importance and likes that sort of thing.
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:Or something (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful.
Re:Or something (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't harassing, it is notifying him of some great opportunities that he might not know about. If he doesn't take my call, I will starve, as I am a single mother who is just doing this job to get by. Or some crap like that. Anyway, this judge could opt-out. In fact, he would be required to, since it is my right to call him. If I call him 5000 times, that is harassment, but if 5000 people each call him once, what is that?
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:Or something (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or something (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
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.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, 50 million households who just handed their home phone numbers to every telemarketer in America.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The pocket phrase (Score:5, Funny)
but er.. I think the way it's supposed to go is the judges end up in the pockets of the big corporations (alongside all of the politicians).
Re:The pocket phrase (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, you post to Slashdot. When your "girlfriend" has her hand in your pocket, she's going for your credit card.
To see how many more minutes you can afford on the "date".
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That took real guts... (Score:4, Informative)
District Judges aren't really political creatures. Once they're appointed, they're there for life, and their ONLY politicking is jockying for a seat on the Apellate Circuit or the Supreme Court.
For the uninformed about how the courts work: the Telemarketers got a very good lawyer, and got lucky.
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: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
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.
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.
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.
Re:Real Civil Liberty issues here (Score:4, Interesting)
The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act does not authorize the FTC to create a Do-Not-Call database. It authorizes the FTC to collect fees to support the operation of the database.
The authorization to regulate telemarketing call (including creating a Do-Not-Call database) was explicitly given to the FCC in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act "TCPA" of 1991. The FTC was given authority to make rules concerning fraud, harrassment, and abuse in telemarketing By the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud Abuse and Prevention Act "TCFAP" of 1994. The authorization to create a Do-Not-Call registry was not part of the TCFAP.
So congress screwed up. The FCC has the authority. The FTC has the money. The FTC cannot usurp the power explicitly granted to the FCC, just because they feel like it. Neither can the FCC get the money from the FTC.
Congress needs to fix this, but it should be easily fixable, either by shifting the authority form the FCC to the FTC or by shift ing the money from the FTC to the FCC.
Re:That took real guts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That took real guts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there's no reason to believe that the database will be available to the telemarketers. If shouldn't go active until the decision of its legality is made, and if it's not legal it should be destroyed.
congressional authority (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Free Speech issue (Score:3, Informative)
Except the Supreme Court has already held that commercial speech doesn't have the same protection as individual speech. The question is probably going to end back up in the Supreme Court as it's not clear how much latitiude Congress has in a case like this.
As annoying as telemarketing calls are, they do serve a function. Just because 50 million people believe that they shouldn't have to be bothered s
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.
Call telemarketer CEOs to chat (Score:5, Interesting)
A corporate function. I'm not interested in corporate functions. If I want to talk to someone, I give them my phone number, and say, "Call me sometime. We'll do lunch."
If this is a question of free speech, then I say we get the numbers of the telemarketers, and start calling them at all hours, just to chat.
It's just free speech, after all.
Just because 50 million people believe that they shouldn't have to be bothered saying "I'm not interested." doesn't necessarily mean Congress can shut the industry down.
It's not Congress, it's the people who opt-out. Congress merely gave people the power to opt-out. How is that unfair to the industry? Hell, the industry should be glad! That's 50 Million phone calls they don't have to make because those people would have said "No" anyway.
Also, corporations do not have any fundamental "right" to exist. Corporations are charters granted by the state. Until the late 1880s in the US, the state could excersize the right to revoke a charter if it were determined that the corporation were not acting in the best interest of the citizenry.
Re:congressional authority (Score:4, Informative)
The List (Score:5, Interesting)
Or is their access to the DNC list numbers restricted?
Re:The List (Score:4, Interesting)
I certainly don't think it was a scam all along, but if the law is overturned, I doubt there is anything to stop telemarketers from using this list.
Re:The List (Score:3, Funny)
My phone company just sent me a thick book yesterday filled with pages and pages of valid residential phone numbers (and even addresses!). They're in league with the telemarketers! Revolt, revolt!
Seriously, getting valid telephone numbers has never been that hard. It's not the same thing as spammers trying to gather valid email addresses.
Alternate Story (Score:3, Informative)
Another Alternate Story... (Score:3, Informative)
Easy answer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, use a pay phone.
Details of the court (Score:4, Interesting)
Addresses of the judge... Home, Courthouse?
Phone numbers for the judge? Home, Courthouse, Cell?
Docket # of the case...
I want to file an Amicus brief, and I WANT TO CALL THIS ASSHOLE.
After about 50 million people give him a call, he might get the message that we've told the industry to go fuck themselves for a reason...
My anger notwithstanding, there is US Sup. Ct. precedence for upholding the list! The Supremes decided this regarding regular mail, and I fail to see why telephone calls ought to be any different...
Re:Details of the court (Score:4, Informative)
Chambers Page for The Honorable Lee R. West [uscourts.gov]
Chambers Page for
The Honorable Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151
And their web address is... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And their phone number is... (Score:5, Informative)
And they want you to Contact the DMA... (Score:4, Informative)
- "The DMA is a membership organization." Interesting fact.
- "We are here to help you." Good, because I need help right now- my blood pressure is up after reading this article.
- "You can reach us by mail, phone, fax or e-mail at the following addresses:"
And then follows a list of over 30 contacts [the-dma.org]. I wonder who could help... "Consumer assistance"? No, I never consume their products (although they try to force feed everyone) so that isn't me. Privacy? That probably goes to an overfilled voicemail. How about "Direct Marketing Educational Foundation"? That could work- I certainly think that Direct Marketing needs more education.Re:And their web address is... (Score:4, Informative)
(1) Infocision
http://www.infocision.com/commercial_
Want more information about InfoCision's teleservices outsourcing capabilities? You can contact us using one of the following methods:
By phone
Todd Grable, Sr. Vice President - Marketing
330-668-1400
(2) Global Contact Services
http://www.gcsagents.com/gcsweb/gcs%20w
What's the GCS advantage? We've assembled a team of Call Center industry
experts and have built a company fully focused on our clients. If you're
looking for experience and expertise, look no further than GCS. We're
The Right Call.
Want more information? Please contact: Benny Callahan EVP, Sales
Phone: (704) 782-0596
E-mail: benny.callahan@gcsagents.com
(3) Chartered Benefit Services, Inc.
http://www.charteredbenefit.com/
Need more information?
If you are a financial institution and would like information about
partnering with us, please call (847) 797-8500
Our address is:
315 W. University Drive,
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Y'know... (Score:5, Funny)
Peachy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yippie. >:|
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 l
Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Idea not dead (Score:5, Informative)
What about privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
finally! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
A similar article with a little more (Score:5, Informative)
A nice quote from that article:
Gee, I guess that never occurred to them before this list was created. Now that it has occurred to them, any bets on if they'll actually respect those wishes?Re:A similar article with a little more (Score:4, Interesting)
Forcing a company to obtain this list prior to making calls is a much different situation from requiring them to keep and honor a list of numbers they have called and been asked not to call again. The crux of the matter is the notion that advertising is not fully protected speech... which is fine. Regulate away. But to blatantly allow not-for-profit organizations to solicit donations while restricting for-profits from calling? Whatever.
I find the telepanhandlers way more annoying than the people who actually want to sell me something-- I don't see why the "speech" of charities is somehow more worthwhile than the speech of corporations. Want to guess how many more calls I'll get after this list goes into full play from groups like the Nation Foundation or the ACLU Foundation? Can't wait to see which new foundations are founded just for the purpose of making it possible for companies to do "branded" mailings and callings under the cover of a non-profit. Even without a sales pitch, anything with a corporate logo on it could very well be considered "advertising" (witness the recent Nike lawsuit).
Of course I talk to very few telemarketers/telepanhandlers/bill-collectors anyway... I use caller ID and an answering machine to my benefit. Best of all, neither of the above can realistically be regulated into existence or arbitrarily wiped out of existence by a capricious Judiciary.
Judges contact info: (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/west.htm [uscourts.gov]
You know what to do.
Telemarketing in OK (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/budget/table1.pd
At least Walmart has more employees.
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.
Oooo-klahoma... (Score:4, Funny)
"Where your privacy's cheap, and things that beep
"Don't stop slammers - even on their dime...."
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.
Re:You know what I don't understand? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how I feel about that call machine they use, that puts in a delay before talking to a real person; on the one hand I'm dismayed at the increase in effeciency, on the other hand I'm greatful that I can so often sneak a hangup into there...
You just signed up for what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You just signed up for what? (Score:3)
I suspect this is the case with many states that established DNC lists.
This ruling has no effect on the state's own DNC lists, as far as I know.
.pdf of the court's order (Score:4, Informative)
Repeat after me (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Just record those three tones that indicate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Works every time!
Don't sweat it (Score:5, Insightful)
Top Ten Uses for a Blocked Do-Not-Call List (Score:5, Funny)
9. Use it to pick lottery numbers.
8. Send $1 to the first person on the list, then add your name to the bottom and forward it to 10 friends.
7. Same as above, but put your name at the top of the list.
6. Tell John Ashcroft it's a list of suspected terrorists.
5. Create the ultimate uncrackable password: echo `cat donotcalllist`
4. Reduce the national deficit by selling it back to the telemarketers for a pretty penny.
3. Register every phone number as a new Internet domain (212-555-1234.com) to help thwart Verisign.
2. Filter it through the Unix command "tr aeiou eioua" and remark how everybody's names look Swedish.
1. Turn in the bastards to the RIAA.
The FCC has approved this. (Score:5, Informative)
That's either going to be overturned on appeal, or the FCC and FTC will work out some organizational way to deal with it.
Even with the judge's ruling, the do-not-call registry should still apply to businesses directly regulated by the FCC, such as telephone companies.
this makes sense... (Score:4, Interesting)
WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ON THAT LIST?!
by creating the list you kill the industry. this judge realizes that and is taking action.
if the list is legal, then you might as well just make telemarking ILLEGAL... same effect.
If Alexander Graham Bell could see us now (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Dave Barry (Score:5, Funny)
So how long before Dave Barry [miami.com] publishes the Oklahoma judge's phone number? ;)
No clue about cell numbers and unlisted numbers... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm concerned about people who provided cell numbers and unlisted numbers to the list.
Telemarketers have been able to download the list for some time now from donotcall.org. That means they not only have verified that your number is current but that they also have the potential to add to their call lists additional numbers they did not have before.
The nice lady at the court office said attorney's from neither side had ever mentioned that issue and that the judge had not considered it. I asked whether it was not incumbent upon a responsible judge to educate himself as to all the ramifications of any ruling he might make, whether those issues were raised by the parties or not. I reminded her that up to 50 million people are unofficial and apparently unrepresented parties to the suit and I would think the judge should have given a little thought to protecting my privacy rights as he made his ruling.
Congressman Tauzin's aide who is specifically taking calls re this ruling said 1) this issue isn't over - they are looking at legislation and/or challenges to the ruling and that they are moving quickly and 2) as far as she knows, no one at the legislative level has thought about the issue of unlisted numbers which might now be on that list in the hands of telemarketers. Oops. By the way, I started and ended that conversation by expressing appreciation to the Congressman for his efforts on our behalf.
Charlie, who answered the consumer complaint phone for the FTC Southeast region, was a little confused at first as to what my concern was. As soon as he "got it," he asked to be excused for a moment. When he came back a good while later, he reported that as far as they could tell, the download was still available on the website and they were escalating the question up the chain to the national level as quickly as possible so that someone could address it pronto. Good on Charlie! Very sharp young man -- he deserves a promotion!!
Don't you just love the level of foresight on the part of those working to "protect" our privacy? I mean, I truly do appreciate the effort, but they need to do their homework a little better.
I just called his chambers... (Score:4, Informative)
I spoke to a nice lady, told her the gist of my second paragraph above (redacting the personal comments) and that the judge had overstepped HIS authority. I warned her to expect a lot of calls.
She asked me for my name and phone number....
Re:two things (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for a capitalist society, but these people need t
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:50 million upset vs 50 million out of jobs... (Score:3, Interesting)
the telemarketing association puts the number somewhere between 1 and 2 million. 50 million vs 1 or 2 is not a difficult question to answer. If this went to the polls it would pass so easily it wouldn't even be an issue. I'm sorry if it puts that many people out of a job, but really the people have spoken, we are supposed to have a say in how we are governed and this judge overruling what certainly has a huge public mandate is egregious power grabbing
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.
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:Can we get some information on the (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting the judge's office number is easy -- just call up the courthouse. But if you did call, you will probably just get a secratery that will say that the judge makes his rulings BASED ON THE LAW.
I don't know about you, but I've already written my congress-critters and referenced the court case, asking that if the case has any merit, they need to pass a law explicitly permitting the DNC ban.
frob
Re:50 million numbers, not people (Score:4, Insightful)