OT - No-Call list

General Woundwort · #1 July 11th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
Just because something isn't Banned by the US constitution doesn't mean it's OK! Perhaps you wouldn't mind sending me your e-mail address so I can send it to all the spammers so they can 'promote their companies'

He doesn't have to. It's in the BB info line, at the top of every one of his Posts. Just as "public" as, say, a phone number.

Krsqk · #2 July 11th, 2003, 01:09 AM

There's nothing to stop me from, say, going through the "G" section of the phone book and calling every number to promote my business. Telemarketers just use a more refined Version of this. You can already make your number unlisted. You can have the phone company change your number and make it unlisted. You already can order companies not to call you again, and you can take them to court if they do. Not to mention the dozens of fun ways to "out-annoy" telemarketers, such as hanging up if no one answers in the first two seconds, or answering the phone in Spanish/French/German during prime call-time (and changing Languages on them), or interrupting them and blathering on about your kidney problems... All of these are effective (they will likely get your number removed); they are free; and they don't involve government in something which private citizens are perfectly capable of doing on their own.

[edit] Another note: If I tell a telemarketer not to call me back, I also tell them that I make it a point never to purchase something over the phone. This increases the odds of their actually removing my name from their list; and if enough people do so, it will be reflected in statistical evaluations on the effectiveness of telemarketing. This is both a short-term (affecting me immediately) and a long-term (affecting the industry of telemarketing) solution.

[ July 11, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

DavidG · #3 July 11th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
Just because something isn't Banned by the US constitution doesn't mean it's OK! Perhaps you wouldn't mind sending me your e-mail address so I can send it to all the spammers so they can 'promote their companies'

He doesn't have to. It's in the BB info line, at the top of every one of his Posts. Just as "public" as, say, a phone number.

Naw I was looking for that private one that he doen't make public.

DavidG · #4 July 11th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
There's nothing to stop me from, say, going through the "G" section of the phone book and calling every number to promote my business.

No but there should be.

Mathias_Ice · #5 July 11th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
Just because something isn't Banned by the US constitution doesn't mean it's OK!

You are correct, see below referencing Article X of Bill of Rights. This would be a states issue. I know the state I live in has a "no call list." Of course it has the same problems that I mentioned earlier as far as needing maintenance, and Megacorps being able to buy their way off this list. Never the less, as far as Constitutionality, the state's laws are far more acceptable.

Mathias Ice

Thermodyne · #6 July 11th, 2003, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:
LOL like the framers of the constitution had the need to worry about phone spam.

The right to privacy would be the issue here.

What the framers of the U.S. Constitution were worried about was limiting the size of the Federal government. Of course this fact has been all but ignored by both major political parties in the United States. As far as a right to privacy, a reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals no stated "right to privacy." This so-called right comes from Supreme Court judges deciding that Article IV of the Bill of Rights which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see "right to privacy" in that. But then again when you have Supreme Court judges who believe the U.S. Constitution should be discarded, insist on imposing a "seperation of church and state" (definitalty NOT in th U.S. Constitution,) and consistently ignore Article X of the Bill of Rights which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," what do you expect?

Mathias Ice

The space between the two lines would indicate two statements. The second made no mention
of the constitution. American law is based on precedent, which has its power rooted firmly
within the supreme court. And the court usually leans towards the will of the people as opposed
to the will of business.

I for one rely heavily on my message recordings. I do not like the fact that I have to sift past 20
adds before I can reach a message that I need to answer so that I can continue to make money.
I also do no like picking the phone up only to hear a machine make a guess on weather I am
there in person or just a machine. And I hate the lying scumbag sales people who pretend that
someone I know referred them to me or try to convince me that I really need to have their card
in my wallet. Hey I sent out lots of post cards to help get this passed. You want to advertise so
that I see it? Then go buy some time on the tube or a piece of a page in the post. You can
even send me some mail. But you won�t be using the lowbuck phone call system any more

By the way, how does this grow the Feds? They will have a net loss if the system works. Do
you have any idea how many complaints they have to field about phone solicitations? I guess its
back to the 1-900 scams for the phone banks now

Krsqk · #7 July 11th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Oh, I'm not against having laws against telemarketing; I'm just against federal laws for such things. The Constitution/Bill of Rights does not specifically empower the federal government to deal with the matter, and Article X indeed reserves that right to the states. If each state wants to ban it, fine. If a telemarketer wants to call long-distance to get around it, that's a waste of their money, and not many will.

I would note that I'm opposed to the current trend of amending state constitutions by popular vote to pass legislation which hasn't made it through the legislature (in relation to this topic, constitutionally mandating a do-not-call list). Constitutions are not made to be flexible enough to deal with legislative issues, especially issues with fiscal impacts (IOW, almost all of them).