Sign the Petition to STOP these calls

I started a petition to ban telemarketing. Since the Do Not Call List is a joke and unenforced, we need to take a petition to the FCC. Telemarketing is an outdated, unwanted intrusion into our homes and I believe it is trespassing. I also believe it is an invasion of privacy if they are accessing a private number. No one wants or needs telemarketing in this day and age. No one wants to be harassed in their own homes at all hours of the day and night. Let's put a stop to these rude intrusions now... please sign my petition at Change.org > http://www.change.org/petitions/fcc-ban-telem ... political-calls

First off, I'm not signing anything drafted by someone who thinks spamming a forum designed to help people thwart junky callers is an acceptable means of promotion. Given the petition's subject matter, I would expect more careful attention to the issue of unwanted noise and intrusion in *any* medium. (note: Three copies of the same plea from Debbie Crivaro were posted here within the same half hour. Two of the redundant new threads were canned by Admin shortly after their appearance.)

The submitted "petition" letter is not a petition but merely copies its author's explanation. It is really an unfocused emotionally-driven complaint, lacking both a clear call to action and a fundamental understanding of the regulatory structure behind the current rules. We can argue over how adequate it's been, but the flat claim that DNC registrants enjoy zero enforcement is simply not true. I would be embarrassed to have my name below a mini-rant which thinks "registery" is a valid English word.

Without getting too windy, the aiming of this effort at the FCC shows how little the issue was studied. To get past the four exemptions to the DNC program, you first need to overcome the frankly logical definition of "telemarketing" inked by the FTC in the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). If you're not selling something for money, you're not "marketing", on the phone or otherwise.

To be sure, many callers have been skirting if not defeating the purpose of those exemptions for some time. There are many ideas for targeted reform we could hash out. Throwing tantrums and trying to repaint the issue of undesired phone calls as a criminal offense like "trespassing" is not getting the job done and does not make a credible protest.

Resident47 has a funny and valid point--not the forum for expressing this.  But Deb's attempt has some merit as I see it:  

1.  She illustrates that there is a rampant problem (ie. unauthorized phone calls are intrusive/invasive and should be prohibited).  

2. She took action to correct the problem.  She's not just spouting her opinions on a thread.  

3.  Her emotionally driven plea (I could not actually get to the link, I'm just going by Resident47's description) highlights that there is a problem that affects and frustrates many people, even the ones that can't articulate it or create a valid argument.  

It's a real problem (OK, not the biggest problem in the world, but one that negatively affects everyone with an active land line every day).  It's a good idea to create a petition.  It just needs to be reworked to remove the emotion and focus the call to action and clarify the overall argument.  It's my belief that the land line should no longer be used for any reason without authorization of the owner.  The internet has opened enough free avenues to pollers and charities to compensate for lost access via phone.  Making micro-laws to control access hasn't worked and will continue to fail.  They will always find ways to circumvent.

Thank you for noting that I'm trying to keep some humor about this. I have plenty of problems with the way junk callers are handled, or not handled, by the current regs. I also have a problem with the ignorance and unrealistic expectations many people display in expressing their own dissatisfaction. But I won't go crabbing on that point now because there is something more pertinent missing from this attempted protest.

You've pretty much seen the whole thing in the initial thread post. Here is the full copy from the Change.org page. Again, the author uses it verbatim twice for both the petition and its own introduction:

"This is important because telemarketing is not only annoying, it IS an invasion of my privacy. The minute that phone rings in MY home, you are, in essence, IN my home. If I did not invite you (by giving you my number and permission to call me) then you are trespassing. The DNC registery does not work. Many telemarketers ignore it, and charities, surveys and political endorsers are exempt. We need to ban this archaic practice. In this day and age no one wants or needs telemarketing. Many people are even charged to have this pestering call because the companies are now calling cell phones. It is time to ban this act of trespassing once and for all and grant us peace in our own homes."


Many detractors of such protest don't see the "death by paper cut" ... or by ringtone ... aspect of the worst junk callers. "Just ignore the noise and it goes away", goes the argument. However, the effort needed to pinch off the verbal waste pipelines of various hucksters and fraud peddlers is by far less arduous than cleaning up the messes they leave. That is to say, we and our authorities cannot go on spending all our time filing lawsuits, failing to recover swindled funds, and repairing broken lives when a little more proactive thinking might have prevented the damage.

This non-petition never addresses the tangible consequences of an intangible problem like pesky phone calls from barely legal boiler rooms. Without clearly defining a problem's true scope, including both a cause and an effect, there is nothing to get behind. There is no specific demand made; the whole point of a petition is to see a functional goal achieved. The mere screeching of personal affront while glancing on several topics with no paragraph breaks is a non-starter.

Since Ms. Crivaro decided to open three new identical threads on this site to beat her war drum, and I don't trust the petition's host site, (more on that later) I don't have a better place to air my responses. I have to invert bullet point #2 and say she's not really gotten past "spouting her opinions" just because the venue is ostensibly where one takes action.

It would take a couple of millions to invent and sell technology that blocks intrusive calls. Millions that are being wasted for worthless projects can be used for something better?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

The other day I wrote about my reasons of principle for avoiding the Crivaro complaint. The venue of choice, Change.org, also concerns me. I note that every page load to a fresh browser wants me to set both a session and a tracking cookie, even on pages with no petition content, such news articles and the "about us" pages. There should be no need for any cookies or a session mode until I am ready to add my name to a petition. I'd imagine the idea is to prevent ballot stuffing, but I'm not happy with leaving bread crumb trails.

With Java enabled I also see site calls going to external domains, usually Amazon, Facebook, and Google Analytics, in that order. This may indicate that anything I do on this site will be monitored by commercial interests without my express consent. Facebook, arguably the greatest source of voluntary security leaks ever conceived, may in fact be providing an engine for recording and storing the petition sigs and user comments. All of the above site behavior appears counter to the goal of halting commercial intrusion upon private communications.

If that's not enough, the site's service terms name the American Arbitration Association as the only venue for relief if I have a legal dispute. In debt collection cases just a few short years ago, binding arb clauses like this were a means of keeping disputes out of public scrutiny and blindsiding consumers with unfair judgments. One arb forum and an entire collection and debt buying cabal imploded under the scandal. Of the two remaining arb forums which accept consumer cases, AAA is the cheaper and reportedly less trustworthy choice.

Intrusive site cookies, monetization of personal data, and slanted arbitration clauses are not features of better established civic-minded groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Public Citizen. These concerns are not part of "Change" I can afford.

Lurking around on the "Change" site reveals two prior recent protest efforts with a similar theme. One from another Deb, last name Mannix, wishes to "stop calling telephones with a automated marketing or political message". The other from Robert Hyde wanted to "Defeat HR 3035", which is now obviated by that foolish bill having since exploded on the launch pad.

the competing petitions
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-us-senate ... keting-messages
http://www.change.org/petitions/consumers-wan ... -remain-private

prior discussion of the Mobile Informational Call Act
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-44ca2801e02e7d6 ... o-mobile-phones
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-4594f1abc7694bc ... -is-screwed-act

The Mannix complaint is another huffy run-on paragraph which mostly describes automated predictive dialing and erroneously assets that "no one is enforcing the do not call regulations". Again there is no call to action and no distinction between the petition and its synopsis. It replays a fairly common confusion over the nature of the registry. It is not a law or a regulation, but a program for listing phone numbers. Put another way, the TSR is the hammer and the DNC list is the keg of nails. Neither will do more than sit idle until someone uses the tools.

The Hyde missive is the only articulate effort of the bunch, doing a thorough job of defining his take on the problem. But yet again the explanation is also the "petition", and does not function as a petition due to its density and its lack of a clear call to action. One more line saying "please kill this bill" might have been a start. Just as in a sales presentation, you can't stand there "building value" for twenty minutes and quit before you actually "close".  

Delivering a message, political or otherwise, is about what happens at the point of delivery. A message which is poorly constructed concentrates more on the sender's mindset than its intended audience. That tendency toward kneejerking and poor communication is why so many protest efforts fail quickly.

LOL.  It wouldn't take 'millions' to block the calls.  A simple program change to 'accept' only people on my contact list would work.  I am concerned about Resident47's thoughts on a persons right to privicy.

Another empty feel good activity, which solves nothing and diverts time and energy from actually solving the problem.  Telemarketing is only one face of the problem, and unwanted telemarketing is already against the law.  I wonder if, before you set this process in motion, you took the time to read the existing laws in this area?

As someone who is fairly radical in his views regarding telephonic intrusions, why am I saying such terrible things about this effort?

First, you face some potentially significant First Amendment hurdles. But let's set that one aside for the moment.

Second, it fails to address the problem.  It is another Band-Aid Jr. on a system which is hemorrhaging to death.  Much of this activity is already unlawful.  Phony debt collectors, phony surveys, extortion, fraud, obscene calls, etc., all illegal.  That is why callers are hiding behind offshore smokescreens, spoofed CID information, and ever changing numbers.  Incidentally spoofing CID for such purposes is also illegal.

Third, whether they pay lip service to them or not, politicians are usually unswayed by Internet petitions.  They are swayed by your ability to deliver votes, and there is a disconnect between signers and voters.  I think anyone who has been involved in the nuts and bolts of politics will tell you this, at least in private.  As a small example, recently I saw the shabby treatment the Obama administration gave their own petition system in a matter involving an important development in cancer therapy.  And the only difference between them and other politicians (either party) in this regard is that they have made a big deal about their petition process.

So it is easy for me to throw rocks, what positive comments do I have to offer?

I think you will have much better luck if you pursue this sort of thing in a collaborative way.  There are a number of people concerned about these issues who can shed light on the solutions.  There may also be people working with elected representatives and telcos on developing answers.  

Have you contacted politicians, industry groups, or established activists in these arenas, or do you think tossing a petition on line is sufficient unto itself?  If, by chance, your petition gains traction, you are likely to find any momentum it generates hijacked by someone else for their own agenda, in no small measure because you haven't built strategic relationships and developed a coherent plan.

There are difficult technical issues in implementing any sort of useful technical solution, and equally difficult diplomatic and legal issues in implementing a solution in law.  So much so, that I will likely oversimplify these matters in my response.  I'm not trying to draft an RFC here, just trying to illustrate broad concepts and general issues.  This will be a ponderous tome as it is, so please forgive such cheats and conceits.

Most legitimate U.S. companies are complying with the DNC law already.  So what we are talking about for the most part is a way of stopping criminals, many of them offshore operations.

One concept which might be helpful is the use of encryption technology to send a verifiable signature with each call.  Such a signature could include not only the identity of the caller, but the class of call being made.  However, this exacerbates already worrisome concerns about state conducted surveillance of personal communications, and more significantly, at present, there is no infra-structure to support such a solution.

Most of this unwanted traffic is traveling over the Internet at some point in the process.  We could of course disconnect the U.S. Internet from the rest of the world.  It would certainly dramatically reduce the problem.  But I think the unintended consequences of that solution would be devastating.

Likewise, we could ban VOIP from the U.S. Internet, but again the consequences would be devastating.  Besides, having gotten a taste of the easy pickings to be had, some predators would bear the cost of more traditional telephony.  If they can VOIP there way to Canada or Mexico, it wouldn't be a big deal to dial in to the U.S. would it?

So, are we doomed to live with this problem forever?  No.  Three things are needed.  

Technology created this problem, and technology can help to mitigate it.  This is why I am a strong advocate of call blocking technology.  And as this problem creates a demand for relief, the marketplace will look for ways to fill the void.

As was mentioned, the DNC lacks teeth, and vigorous enforcement.  In part this is a consequence of both technical and diplomatic issues.  But we do need to put forth more effort in this area.  Significant improvements are needed in the DNC, TCPA, FDCA, FCRA, Truth in Caller ID, HIPAA, and other laws.  Among other things, I would like to see an end to offshore processing and storage of personal data.

Finally, because this activity crosses international boundaries, we need the cooperation of other countries.  While I would like to see this achieved through negotiation, the truth is that impoverished countries have little incentive to put an end to this sort of activity, and limited resources to do it with.  I think sanctions will be needed.  And I think that we may ultimately have to threaten nations like India with a graduated decrease in the maximum permissible data traffic between our two nations with a final endpoint of 0.  Eventually this will either get a cooperative response, or it will move more jobs back to the U.S., and in the process, cripple these callers.  I realize that this is a radical approach, and unlikely to be considered given all of the oxes it would gore.

While we are on the subject of India, more disturbing that any unwanted caller, is the wholesale export of our sensitive personal data, medical as well as financial, overseas, not only to India, but to other countries as well.  Placing such valuable information in the hands of low wage workers in an impoverished nation is courting disaster.  In fact, I have wondered if some portion of the loan scammers might have harvested information from such records.

In the end, if telemarketing is outlawed, only outlaws will telemarket.  For the most part, we are already at that juncture.

I appreciate your good intentions, but we all know where that sort of pavement tends to wind up.

Personal Opinion: Follow the money. Someone is making money from these operations.

this is illegal and when companies loose money on people credit card debts and get compensated for it ,plus get tax exemptions for it id say theve got paid enough and the dead debts should not be allowed to be bought that should end it.plus there are many debts that are bogus not even real collectors are hastling people for that dont exist., some poor folks even pay these to get rid of illegal nagging calls .....A..

I'm really PO'd. I had sound turned OFF during church and STILL got 3 calls from this number (as shown on cell: +243 990655377.  Since it went through with sound OFF, I figured it was from the government - one of their new "emergency" notifications/crap.  No, I never answer unknown numbers, but I was totally irate. Also deliberately do not have voice mail activated on the cell, don't want to pay/waste minutes on this garbage. Cannot locate owner by reverse look up, either. Still irate, can you tell?