Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the 405-609-5099 dept.

Privacy 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Grrrrr..... (3, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045191)

Just when you thought it was safe to answer the phone...

405-609-5099 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045223)

everyone start calling 405-609-5099

WHAT IS "TEH SPOKE" AND HOW CAN I GET ON IT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045230)

Re:Grrrrr..... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045231)

I'm sure they're just doing what's in the best interest of the 3 families with phones in their state.

Re:Grrrrr..... (4, Insightful)

Void_of_light (469480) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045300)

What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks. 50 million people can't be wrong. Its our phone number if we want it on a no call list it should be our right to put it there. The only time it would be over stepping a boundry would be if the FTC signed the numbers up without your permission.

Re:Grrrrr..... (4, Insightful)

blitziod (591194) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045381)

well the majority of american voters at one time supported the enslavement of black people. They also supported geneocide for native americans. I would say 50 million people could be dead wrong.

Oklahoma? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045195)

Just bomb the bastards. That'll teach 'em.

Re:Oklahoma? (0, Troll)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045280)

bomb?? ahah you're so 90's!

nowadays we use planes!

Time to break out your guns, Oklahomers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045196)

You knows you got 'em.

Gee... (-1)

Stingr (701739) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045198)

I didn't see that one coming.

Call me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045202)

First post! W00t!

And you can even try to sell me things....
Give me a call at 1800 2221222

That took real guts... (4, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045203)

No matter if you agree or not, you must realize that this judge just ticked off roughly 50 million Americans. He must really, REALLY think he's making the right decision (or lives in his own little world...).

Or something (2, Insightful)

siskbc (598067) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045234)

e must really, REALLY think he's making the right decision (or lives in his own little world...).

Or has an enormously inflated sense of self-importance and likes that sort of thing.

Re:Or something (3, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045332)

We could educate him.

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:That took real guts... (3, Insightful)

Asprin (545477) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045235)


Yeah, 50 million households who just handed their home phone numbers to every telemarketer in America.

Not really (2, Insightful)

Isochrome (16108) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045239)

Most of the telemarketing firms are in these backwater states. I'll bet he was getting pressured by local businesses to strike it down.

Ruling for business over private citizens. Now that's something that takes real guts in the US.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045331)

Which is a good reason why judicial positions shouldn't be political. Some countries don't elect their judges.

Re:Not really (-1, Troll)

ClippyHater (638515) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045372)

This will probably mark me as a Troll--if so, so be it...

Ruling for business over private citizens. Now that's something that takes real guts in the US.

Actually, with the current president, it would take real guts not to rule in favor of business over private citizens, unless the private citizens happen to be among the wealthiest in the country.

Re:That took real guts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045247)

What's his phone number?

Re:That took real guts... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045276)

Re:That took real guts... (5, Insightful)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045250)

Or the DMA has its hand in his pocket. I don't always assume that's the case, but it's always a possibility.

Re:That took real guts... (4, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045293)

He must really, REALLY think he's making the right decision

Translation for those uninformed about how politics really work: He must have gotten paid really, REALLY well by the telemarketers.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:That took real guts... (1)

baltimoretim (631366) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045295)

Right. And the list has 50 million numbers on it, each number potentially representing more than one person!

The question becomes: if the courts do overturn this, do US citizens believe enough in this measure to make it a constitutional amendment?

Oh, and if the list is not enforceable, and the telemarketers already have a copy of it, have we just handed them a nice fat list of phone numbers that they can now legally call? Bastards!

Re:That took real guts... (1)

Ho-Lee-Cow! (173978) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045333)

The DeCSS judge thought that too....

He also had huge conflict of interest.

Re:That took real guts... (5, Insightful)

Parsa (525963) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045363)

I do NOT agree with the court, but from a judicial stand point I think he's looking at the legality of one agency imposing rules that is not it's job.

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

congressional authority (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045219)

The question seems to be whether U.S. congress gave the FTC the authority to create such a list. This is a popular measure with a lot of support. Would it be possible for congress to explicitly give the FTC this authority?

Re:congressional authority (1)

lunatik42 (665342) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045296)

I think it is. Regardless of whether this list gets shot down, there's bound to be some initiative from the general public to get the list (re?)instated. People are behind this 100%, and there's nothing illegal about it.

Re:congressional authority (1)

sebmol (217013) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045307)

The Federal Trade Commission was created by Congress to enforce trade regulations. So, naturally, Congress has the power to decrease, increase or strip the authority of the commission.

Re:congressional authority (2, Insightful)

secolactico (519805) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045359)

The question seems to be whether U.S. congress gave the FTC the authority to create such a list. This is a popular measure with a lot of support. Would it be possible for congress to explicitly give the FTC this authority?

But if it's an issue of Free Speech, the congress won't have the authority to grant the FTC this authority.

Corporatocracy in Action (2, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045221)

Great. Now even the judicial branch is bought and paid for.

We're hosed.

Re:Corporatocracy in Action (2, Insightful)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045286)

Not necessarily.

One of the dominant industries in Oklahoma is telemarketing (because there's no shortage of poor blacks and white trash who will work minimum wage while taking the abuse from those they call). Oklahoma politicians don't want the industry shut down, as the last thing they need is more people out of work.

The List (5, Interesting)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045226)

So do the Telemarketers now have a list of phone numbers that they know are valid? Can they use the DNC list to target their marketing for "difficult" or "hostile" numbers? Was this really just a scam all along?

Or is their access to the DNC list numbers restricted?

Re:The List (1)

mike77 (519751) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045294)

I dunno, but I'd sure as heck like to find out. I was a bit hesitant to sign up at the beginning because of this very possibility. I don't think it's a covert scheme or anything, but the question is, have the lists already been sent out to telemarketers, and if so, can they legally use those numbers?

Re:The List (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045386)

The DMA can't use the phone numbers they've gotten already or they'll get sued for using information obtained in a fraudulent manner.

Alternate Story (2, Informative)

IanO (21302) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045227)

From CNN [cnn.com]

Another Alternate Story... (2, Informative)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045303)

from Fox News [foxnews.com] ...

SAME Story (0)

eoyount (689574) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045346)

That's the exact same story. It came through Reuters.

Exactly why I didn't sign up (1)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045232)

I have an unlisted number, which works very well thank you. If I had signed up, I would now be fair game for all those tele-marketers based in Oklahoma.

Re:Exactly why I didn't sign up (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045306)

Until you use your cc to buy something who sells your data to someone.

this affects me how? (0)

Schwartzboy (653985) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045367)

While the article provides little to no other real information besides "hey, OK shot down something that people at the Federal level brought into existence, the call-spammers are happy, everybody else isn't", what I'm really interested in is the effect this has on me, a non-OK resident. If, as the parent says, it makes everyone on the DNC list legally available to OK-based call-spammers again (provided the OK courts get away with this), then that sucks. If, on the other hand, it opens up the OK numbers on the DNC list to any call-spammer from anywhere in the country, then it sucks to be them and I'm glad I don't live there.

If it works both ways, well...who's up for a real live torch-and-pitchfork vigilante party? Friggin' state courts, anyway.

Re:Exactly why I didn't sign up (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045388)

Surely you would have to live in Oklahoma to be affected by this? Otherwise I would hope that if a telemarketer from Oklahoma calls you that you can take them to court in your own jurisdiction.

Easy answer (4, Funny)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045233)

Call the judge to tell him how you feel, or just try to convince him to change his carrier.

Talk to the Judge (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045318)

I would like to discuss this with the judge. What is the judge's name and telephone number?

Re:Talk to the Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045337)

Make sure that everybody knows who's opposing it (2, Insightful)

Basje (26968) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045237)

One important help in countering this threat, is by making it widely know which politicians, judges and other electable officials are opposing this do not call list.

This is an excellent way to use votes to pressure these people, without waiting for the next election. Let them know this influences your votes

Details of the court (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045238)

Name of the judge?
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...

Ugh. (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045240)

You'd think that with THAT many people signed up, the courts would realize that this is what the people want and decide accordingly, especially when the lawmakers themselves are saying that they approved it.

Of course, the people don't have millions of dollars like the telemarketing lobbyists do...

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:Ugh. (1)

Aviancer (645528) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045279)

Courts don't decide "what people want"... They decide what's legal or not. Obviously this freak thought that, for whatever reason, the do-not-call list interfered with some other federal laws. Oh well.

And their web address is... (4, Informative)

chriseaves (660227) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045241)

http://www.the-dma.org/ [the-dma.org] , they seem to be quite proud of themselves

cats (-1, Offtopic)

cfscript (654864) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045243)


does anyone here have pet cats? how do they effect your coding style? my imaginary girlfriend moved in recently and i have not ben able to write a single line of BASIC or Python on my ti-994a due to their incessant begging and vomiting.

i'd ask this on 'ASK SLASHDOT' but i am repeatedly turned down because 'cats are not computers' even though i call one BSD and the other one CmdrTaco because he shits in my hands

all answers are appreciated!!!!!!!!

Dream on, but open your eyes to reality... (2, Insightful)

jbottero (585319) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045244)

Yup, Big Business does indeed have more lawyers than you and me. This was to be expected.

Yesterday, I got wiped on the floor for suggesting that this will happen to the new Anti-Spam law in Cali.

Well, froth at the mouth all you want, it *will* come to pass.

So much for democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045246)

Yet again big business and lobbying wins. Time to start a new country.

Y'know... (5, Funny)

Tadiera (315450) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045248)

I'm wondering if this judge is getting some sort of deal with a ton of telemarketer companies. "You cancel this 'Do Not Call List' and we'll take your number off of our lists."

Peachy... (2, Insightful)

Whispers_in_the_dark (560817) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045254)

So now the bozos are about to have access to 50-million recently *verified* phone numbers that were provided by the do-not-call list so that those clowns wouldn't call?

Yippie. >:|

Free Speech? (4, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045257)

The article claims that the arguement was that a national do-not-call list violates free speech. How can a list which is opt-in violate free speech? These telemarketers are perfectly free to say whatever they like - I just dont them to call my house to say it.

Idea not dead (4, Informative)

ArthurDent (11309) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045261)

This will get done. The court just has a problem with how the FTC did it. I bet if Congress passed a do not call list bill there would be no problem.

What about privacy? (3, Insightful)

patman600 (669121) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045270)

This is ridiculous. It's my understanding that signing up for the national do not call list was about a person's right to privacy. Free speech laws do not protect someone in the case of harassment or stalking. The do not call list seems kind of like getting a restraining order on them. I hope this decision gets overturned quickly.

Why not? (1)

sixteenraisins (67316) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045274)

I mean, if SPAM is okay in your email, then why not through your telephone? How else do you expect to be bombarded with senseless crap you don't want?

Oh wait - spam ISN'T okay in my email...scratch that...

William

bound to happen (0)

jimi1283 (699887) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045277)

Of course telemarketers heard the toll of their death knell, challenges like this are to be expected. The same will happen if and when any spam legislation gets enacted nationwide as well.

write your congress person (1)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045282)

Write your congress person. Congress just needs to grant the FTC that power. Then the FTC won't be "overstepping their bounds!"

finally! (3, Funny)

ostrich2 (128240) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045283)

I was beginning to think people would actually get what they want in America. My faith in the system is restored!

Pick up a phone and let them know how you feel! (2, Insightful)

linuxrunner (225041) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045285)

Everyone stop right now, and CALL the Oklahoma Judicial branch, and tell them ALL about unsolicited phone calls, and how much you just LOVE to get them.

Maybe after a few hours.... They might understand how we feel.

well...... (1)

chipster (661352) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045287)

"...Looky hare - a foan cawl fer me!"

Brrring... Brrring (1)

illuminata (668963) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045289)

It looks like those judge(s) are going to get an angry phone call... or two... or 50 million.

If the law is bad, change it or throw it out. (1)

hpulley (587866) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045292)

From the article, "Lawmakers were quick to criticize the court's decision, arguing that they had given the FTC the authority to implement the list." But did they give the FTC the authority to break freedom of speech laws? What gives politicians and charities the right to bother us after hours but not businesses?

I'm sure they'll appeal quickly and it could well pass as is but lawmakers make the laws and judges interpret them. If they decide that the law is bad, they'll do what is necessary in their ruling.

Telemarketting vs Spam (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045299)

How would this ruling relate to a similar anti-spam law if it were created?

Free speech is one thing, but if I'm paying for bandwidth, wouldn't that be another thing?

Stunning (1)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045301)

Presumably a single state ruling against this makes the entire DNC list unenforcable. "Oh, hi, we're just calling to check whether you're in Oklahoma or not. Hey, since you're on the line, can we explain why you want a new kitchen?"

How well democracy works.

And can then be sabotaged by one or two well-placed bribes. Oh, sorry, was I speaking out loud?

The DNC list is a triumph of Internet activism, and a courtroom should not be allowed to overrule one's right to a peaceful evening at home.

UNBELIEVABLE!!! (1)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045302)

This is just unbelievable!

How could the US District court rule that the FTC doesn't have the authority to "implement and enforce" the do-not-call list when they were tasked to do this by Congress?

I wonder who was the judge.

Too bad we can't vote for district justices.

Get the judge's phone numbers (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045305)

And start marketing to him..

Lots of these federal judges are SO removed from reality, they wouldn't know it if hit over the head with a clue by four.

A similar article with a little more (5, Informative)

phlack (613159) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045308)

is Here [marketwatch.com]

A nice quote from that article:

In a statement, the DMA said that while it welcomed the ruling, it "acknowledges the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preferences not to receive" telemarketing solicitations.
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?

let me get this straight... (1)

ejbst25 (130707) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045309)

Lawmakers give the FTC the jurisdiction to do this. FTC does it. Law enforcers/interperters say the FTC "overstepped its authority". Now...I know the US system allows judges to question laws and their legality wrt citizen's rights...but to say they didn't have the authority seems incorrect. What am I missing?

OK, get me his phone number, dammit! (1)

mudshark (19714) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045310)

This judge needs to be impeached, pilloried, tarred/feathered, and called at all hours on his telephone.

I'm sorry, but I will not take any two-bit, inbred, tobacco-chewin' good ol' boy from OKC telling me that MY private phones, which I pay for and maintain, are an acceptable conduit for commercial activity that I neither invite nor condone.

Lee West, with all due respect (none), kiss my fucking rectum.

Outrageous (1)

moby (96858) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045313)

You have to wonder what congressperson or senator is living in this judge's hot little pocket?.

Re:Outrageous (0, Troll)

n00dles (88308) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045378)

Mmm, Hot Pockets.

Let them Call! (0)

MakoStorm (699968) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045315)

I get to make new friends in all sorts of places.

It's astounding what they put up with if they think there is a sale at the end. then I tell them I live in a grass hutt.

Sorry, I cannot use your card, I am full of fruit and cheese!

article short on analysis (1)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045317)

The article doesn't answer the main questions raised by this court ruling.

First, does it effectly halt the do-not-call list's use for the other 49 states? It would be a shame if a state with a population of just 3.5 million [areaconnect.com] could cause the scrapping of a list that protects 50 million Americans from unwanted calls.

The other question left unanswered is where this ruling will be appealed. Does it go to a higher Oklahoma court, or to the Supreme Court, or what?

Has anyone read the decision? (1)

csimicah (592121) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045319)

Have any of you guys been able to find the decision? Because I haven't.

I love how a judge can spend hours or days poring over law and evidence, in addition to a lifetime of legal study and service, only to have people read two sentences in a Yahoo news article and declare him wrong without a doubt.

Re:Has anyone read the decision? (1)

forkboy (8644) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045366)

So are you saying judges are incapable of error because they have extensive legal training and experience? Riiight.

In the minds of the 50 million Americans on the list, there is NOTHING a judge can say to justify this horrible decision against personal privacy.

How does this actually affect us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045330)

Would this let spammers call from Oklahoma to everyone else now, or are we still protected in our non-crazy states?

two things (1)

blitziod (591194) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045334)

Firt as a person who does some biz over the phone( we call people who send us requests to call them) I can tell you that this current law SUCKS. It makes a bunch of costly paperwork and stuff for us. Plus I have had to talk to lawyers from the FTC AND the FCC and nobody can tell me exactly what I have to do to comply. Secondly the law is a violation of teh 1st amendment. The surpeme court ruled on a colorado state law that prevented door to door canvassing. The law was almost exactly the same and the court said it violated the 1st amendment. If you do not like it, we can change the 1st amendment to exempt phone sales from protection, but to do that we have to change the 1st amendment. Free speech comes with costs. Hearing people say things you do not like or do not want to hear is one of those costs.

I lived in the Midwest... (1, Interesting)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045336)

Oklahoma as well as Omaha.

In my experience, the Midwest is FULL of semi-sleezy businesses like giant telemarketing call centers, credit card processing centers, et cetera. There were TONS of them in Omaha, and I'd imagine there'd be lots in Oklahoma as well due to similar economic/financial settings (cheap real estate, lots of room, lots of local bumpkins for cheap labor).

This probably has something to do with it. That, and this is a state where perhaps 50% of the people believe that the Bible is not only true, but literally true and unerring. Their views on things are a little bit different from most of the rest of the nation.

Or, to put it another way, a state (Oklahoma) where pretty much every other person believes the Bible is 100% literal is just the kind of state that would think an anti-telemarketing law is a bad thing.

Hopefully, other states will squash this decision... or, better yet, the Supremes will step in and give a Grand Holy Smackdown to this silliness.

FCC regulations (1)

+_-repo-_+ (315890) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045338)

This only blocks part of the big changes that are comming down on Oct. 1st. There are still pending changes in the way that telemarketers must handle abandon calls, etc. The FTP and FCC were working together here for something. Still stands to be seen what is going to happen for the other changes.

The court is (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045345)

Obviously looking out for the best interests of the people. As of April 1, 2001 there were 3,450,654 Oklahomaidians. So assuming each person has one phoneline, the people have voted by a whopping 1449% that they want the list.

(yes, I know that the math is off, national list and all)

What we really need to know .... (2, Funny)

RedTyde (707025) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045348)

What we really need to know here is WHERE did the judge get the stuff that he was smoking? That's got to be some crazy shit he's got.

Well at least we didn't all just give our numbers to the telemarketers...

Don't be fooled (1)

cfscript (654864) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045353)


Just because you signed up for the KOTOR list doesn't mean you won't receive phone calls, as the main character is really darth revan.

just goes to show you that you can't trust anyone except the guy who wrote LaTeX.

Telemarketing in OK (3, Informative)

Isochrome (16108) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045356)

Two of the top businesses in the state are telemarketers:

http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/budget/table1.pdf

At least Walmart has more employees.

Hopefully this will be overturned (1)

aePrime (469226) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045360)

In the CNN article [cnn.com] I read they said they were fighting it based on first amendment. The right to free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience.

Your rights end when they start intruding on other people's rights.

Don't I have to right to block people from calling me if I don't want them to?

This isn't a big deal. Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045361)

What the judge said is that the FTC didn't have the right to go creating a list that people can't call, because Congress didn't tell them they could. It's not that he disagrees with the list at all. He just wants it done with the right authority. THEN of course we'll see what the courts think of the list itself.

Seriously. Congress is probably going to pass a bill, very quickly, that gives the FTC this authority, considering that 50 million numbers have been signed up for it - and that no congressman has spoken out saying how horrible the idea is.

This is a setback, not game-over. It's like throwing out a court case for being submitted in the wrong jurisdiction.

50 million upset vs 50 million out of jobs... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#7045365)

I work for a list marketing company and as such I get a unique perspective on this issue. Much as I'd hate to admit it this really is a good thing. My company has been growing and expanding but this law was going to seriously hurt our business. We market real lists, not spam crap lists and as a result it was going to cost us a ton of money to clean our lists to ensure DNC compliance. In addition our business was about to take a serious drop as a result of this legislation. Combine the 2 and what you have is increased cost with decreased business. Not a good thing for job security.

We are a small firm, only 12 employees. Imagine the damage that this would have done across the industry. Many people (read programmers) were about to lose their jobs and with the current state of the US economy that sucks.

That being said, its all just a matter of perspective. When I go home and my phone rings during dinner I want to throw it across the room. As a matter of fact, despite the company I work for I was one of the first to put my name on the DNC list.

no easy answers...

This could get messy... (2, Insightful)

upmufa (702569) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045370)

With around 50 million phone numbers currently signed up this could get very messy

I disagree. This just shows that this is a very popular program. If the FTC did "overstep its bounds", then I'm sure congress can be convinced to change the FTC's 'bounds.' Better to have a Congressional stamp of approval on it anyway. I get worried when federal agencies start taking too much on themselves.

Do the courts create law? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045375)

Once again, we have a case where the court system is overstepping its bounds - without any precedent or constitutional reference, a court decides that a law is invalid. When our checks & balances are messed up, how do we fix them? Why are we allowing our courts to destroy the rule of law? To see some more examples of this happening, check out this article by Orson Scott Card [ornery.org] . It is one of many, and brings up some good, and scary, points.

Seams no one lissens tot eh public (2, Interesting)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045377)

Ok at 50 million numbers and climing. Its easy to see the US people do not like telemarketing. but seams the US legal system can not take this inot account. I would hope this goes to a higher cort,a nd all 50million people are asked to write in saying why they do not like telemarketing.

Also give out the phone numbers for the judge's house. And you can all call him around dinner time.

Overstepped its bounds? (4, Insightful)

boarder (41071) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045379)

The court said the FTC didn't have the power to make this law and had overstepped its bounds...

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... (5, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045380)

I thought the FTC _was authorized_ by Congress to construct and issue the Do Not Call list. That's confirmed by several reps interviewed in the CNN article.


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.

Hmmmm, (1)

DocUi (697881) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045384)

Maybe we should call the judge, or the telemarketers at 5~7PM to tell them what we think of all this. While they eat their Dinner. ~The Doc.

DOS them (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045387)

Just remember to make sure you excersise your free speech rights to the max and call up as many telemarketing centers as you can, we could set up an online data base of numbers that are known to be of telemarketing companies and their employees homes, what are we selling?: The message that we dont want to be called, call them up and tell them you dont want to be called, call them up again five mins later and tell them again that you dont want to be called, if its a telemarketing company thats never bothered you in your life even better, tell them you dont want to be called. If enough people DOS the telemarketers they will be screwed, or at the very least get pissed off.

I have a few questions: (1)

RPI Geek (640282) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045389)

If the do-not-call list gets blocked in Oklahoma, will the list be blocked all over the United States or just in Oklahoma? Will telemarketers in Oklahoma be allowed to bother me in New York? Will telemarketers in New York be able to call people in Oklahoma?

Oooo-klahoma... (3, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045391)

"Where the phone rings freely while you dine..."
"Where your privacy's cheap, and things that beep
"Don't stop slammers - even on their dime...."

i find this interesting (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 11 years ago | (#7045392)

one of the articles i've read on this said that the judge said the FTC overstepped it's authority. Several members of congress responded with something like "No, we gave them that authority when we drafted and enacted laws permitting the creation of the DNC"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?