Telemarketers extinct? Oh the joy!!!!

[superchef]

Looking for my profile to see where I am.... it keeps getting lost

27, Maybe you could ask the next telemarketer that calls since they always seem to be able to find you.

[superchef]

maybe we'll have better luck this time..

From the New York Times, Wednesday September 24, 2003

California Is Set to Ban Spam
By SAUL HANSELL


California is trying a deceptively simple approach to the problem of junk e-mail: it is banning spam.

Gov. Gray Davis signed into law last night a bill that outlaws sending most commercial e-mail messages to anyone in the state who has not explicitly requested them. That makes it the most wide-reaching law of any of the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam — or any of the proposed bills in Congress.

"We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent and there are no loopholes," said Kevin Murray, the Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who sponsored the bill.

The law, which also prohibits companies inside the state from sending unsolicited e-mail to anyone outside the state, imposes fines of $1,000 for each message, up to $1 million for each campaign.

Moreover, the proponents of the measure say, it promises to carry greater weight than most such laws because it gives people the right to file private lawsuits, encouraging action by plaintiffs' lawyers even if state prosecutors have other priorities. A similar provision is credited with helping to ensure compliance with the federal law against unsolicited faxes.

Marketers vehemently argue that California's approach is misguided, saying it will do little to restrain the shadowy spammers responsible for most of the objectionable messages often relayed through foreign computers.

"The people sending the latest penis enlargement schemes are not going to pay attention to this," said H. Robert Wientzen, president of the Direct Marketing Association. "This is a group of politicians trying to cash in on a popular issue and will create more confusion and problems than solutions."

The law is similar to one recently enacted in Britain that bans the sending of marketing e-mail to people who do not request it. Most other state laws, and the proposed federal law, allow unsolicited e-mail until the recipient asks to receive no more.

The California law says users must explicitly agree to receive e-mail from each advertiser. That would appear to ban the preferred marketing strategy of many big advertisers: renting lists of people who have agreed to receive e-mail offers, often as part of a sweepstakes entry. "We don't differentiate between Disney and Viagra," Senator Murray said. "If you go out and rent a list of e-mail addresses, by definition you are not a legitimate business. You are the person we are trying to stop."

The law is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. But it faces several hurdles. Many of the bills pending in Congress would pre-empt tougher state laws. And it is bound to be challenged on constitutional grounds.

David E. Sorkin, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said that the law would probably survive a claim that it violated the First Amendment, as courts have held that commercial speech deserves lesser protection than private speech. But it could be struck down as an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.

"I don't think that states have much business regulating the Internet," he said. "If you can't tell where the recipient of an e-mail is, and still have to comply with different state regulations, it is a burden on interstate commerce."

But if the law survives challenge, it could well have a significant effect on spam. Coming from the nation's most populous state and the home to many large Internet companies, the new law puts a burden on the sender to determine if the recipient resides in California, a technically hard task.

"California represents up to 20 percent of the e-mail that is sent or received," said J. Trevor Hughes, the executive director of the Network Advertising Initiative, a group of technology companies that send e-mail for marketers. "Instead of trying to segregate the California e-mail addresses, many of our members are going to make the California standard the lowest common denominator."

Until now, state laws against spam have largely tried to ban deceptive practices in commercial e-mail, like fake return addresses. Many require that spam be identified with the phrase "ADV" in the subject line. Only Delaware has also banned sending unsolicited e-mail. But that law can be enforced only by the state attorney general, who has not taken any action under the statute.

[DaSharkie]

Can't resist this one:

Gov. Gray Davis signed into law last night a bill that outlaws sending most commercial e-mail messages to anyone in the state who has not explicitly requested them.

Trying to save his job is he? I told you I couldn't resist.

[pwc606]

The only tele-anything that calls me are the ones that want money. How do you get a tee shirt out of the deal? I could use the free clothing.:-)


Matt

[Robertsc]

i think you have misunderstood the Do Not Call List has been declared inproper bye a republican court, so we get them back, unless FCC does something.

[superchef]

think you have misunderstood the Do Not Call List has been declared inproper bye a republican court

Yes, I saw that. All those voters the republicans want to make happy so they vote for them again.
The excuse that the Direct Marketing Assoication used is that the "do not call list" blocked its members right to free speech. What about my right to be free of those annoying calls?
As for the zoo currently running amok in CA,

pwc-and here I thought you wanted my cooking. I'll see what I can do about a t-shirt.

[DaSharkie]

My solution was to have caller ID placed on teh line, and then get caller ID block so no anonymous calls come in. I haven't had a telemarketer call in the month since I did it. No complaints out of me.

i think you have misunderstood the Do Not Call List has been declared inproper bye a republican court

So exactly what is a Republican court? I thought we had federal courts, not Democrat or Republican courts.

[MalahatTwo7]

Seems to me like this might be a strong case of "Political suicide" but then who ever heard of a politician doing anything "smart" for the voters?

Cheffie, funny you should suggest that. I have asked a few times of where the office "from which you are calling" was located. Almost everytime its from some "eastern" location and they were not very helpful in telling me where "I was" LOL. Another time I was kinda day dreaming and not paying attention to what the young lady at the other end was trying to sell me and out of the blue I asked her how old she was. I am still not sure who was more shocked, me, my Mom, or the telemarketer, but I will say it ended the conversation real fast. I don't think that particular operator ever called our home again .

[NJFFSA16]

YIPPEE!!

It's back!

The Senate approved legislation that would grant authority to the Federal Trade Commission to maintain a do not call registry for telemarketers. The House approved similar action earlier today. A federal judge ruled Wednesday the FTC lacked authority to create the list. The bill now goes to the president and a spokesman said he is expected to sign it, probably on Friday. About 50 million Americans had signed up for the registry, which was to be implemented on October 1.

WOW...did that happen fast

[superchef]

YIPPEE!! It's back

50 million happy voters is enough to get those politicians moving pretty fast I see.

Thanks for the update NJ. For that good news you get extra dessert!

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Not so fast

Guess again.http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp

[MalahatTwo7]

Mmmm Baird.... Federal Court Judge... Baird..Federal Court Judge... can you see the difference? I can't see the difference. But I can see the similarity: both seem to know how to stall for time.

I will grant a thought here though. The telemarekters are claiming 1st Amendment violations, right? Well that's all great and fine, for one side of the story. Now what about the rest of us? Where do our rights to privacy come into affect concerning unsolicited phone calls. Let me re-phrase this:

If, lets say Jon B was calling to Ed C and generally just being a nuisance, calling at odd hours, maybe not really saying much or being a threat exactly, but just overall a big pain the backside. One of two things will happen, initated by Ed C. 1) he changes his phone number and makes it unlisted. That's great except now he has to tell all his family/friends of the change. 2) he gets a restraining order placed against Jon B. Right?

So in the end no matter what, Jon B is forced to stop calling. I don't know about anyone else, but I generally consider telemarketers as a pain in the backside, and if the government is willing to assist in placing a 'restraining' order against them by enforcing a No Call Registry, then that makes me very happy "Sign Me Up Scotty" LOL. I guess the question I have here is at what point does it become an infringement against the general public to allow a telemarketer to call at strange (read any time) times of the day or night?

On a slightly skewed view point, I also am pleased in a round about way that while I don't agree with the Federal Court Judge and his decision, I can appreciate that he is doing his job. I just wish he could have put his efforts into something a little more worthy, like making sure people like Allen Baird III get what they really deserve.

(For the guys who are or have recently done the FF1 - IFSTA Fire Essentials study books, please read Jon B and Ed C to be Firefighter A and Firefighter B.)

[Bones42]

I'd rather have telemarketers call and hang up on them then to have political parties calling any day. Of course, magically, the political parties are exempt from having to use these lists...so now they have free reign. Imagine that.

[MalahatTwo7]

Bones, you have a point there. Although on this side of the border, I don't seem to recall any politician attempting to reach me at home for "a vote", probably just as well. Although the regional MLA and MP seem to think that it's ok to send newsletters out every few months. Trouble with those is they don't even make for good fire starter.

[mcaldwell]

I just saw a story on the CBC evening news that said there was a bill introduced in parliament that would allow the creation of a "Do Not SPAM" list for folks here in Canada. The fine for an unsolicited e-mail would be $500, and sending Porn SPAM to minors would cost the sender $5000.

I have not found a print link yet, but it sounds good so far.