Slashdot Log In
FTC Bans Prerecorded Telemarketing Drivel
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:51 AM
from the but-will-it-stop-321-504-7429 dept.
from the but-will-it-stop-321-504-7429 dept.
coondoggie writes "In the ongoing battle to let us eat dinner in peace without being interrupted by amazingly annoying telemarketer blather, and in this case the even more infuriating recorded telemarketing drivel, the Federal Trade Commission today basically outlawed recorded telemarketing calls. Specifically, the FTC changed its venerable Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to prohibit, as of Sept. 2009, telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages, unless a consumer has agreed to accept such calls from a given caller/seller. Between now and 2009, telemarketers must provide an obvious, easy and quick way for consumers to opt-out of any call, the FTC said. Such an opt-out mechanism needs to be in place by December 1, 2008."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
prerecorded (Score:5, Interesting)
"telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages"
what if they use text to speech software? it's not prerecorded.
am i looking for money lol
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy Shit Stephen Hawking!, you're selling inflatable underwear? I'll buy a dozen if you autograph them!
Re:prerecorded (Score:5, Funny)
I have an opt out button on my phone. It is automatic and activates every time I slam the phone into its cradle.
Parent
Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit leaving that fucking hole in these things !
Nobody ever willingly agrees to that shit, they're tricked into agreeing every single time.
Nobody wants to fucking hear it, quit making laws that don't do anything other than calm people down for 5 minutes, you fucking assholes !
God damnit, this shit is more irritating than the fucking telemarketers !
Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Useless (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Useless (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that's not true.
I know lots of people that enjoy telemarking calls. My grandmother was one of them. I think she was lonely or something, but she always wanted to talk to them.. She'd ask how their day was, blah blah blah. She'd invite the freaking mormons and JW's in to talk.
Just because you can't imagine why anyone would want to talk to them doesn't mean everyone must be tricked into it.
Parent
Re:Useless (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Useless (Score:5, Informative)
Well.... not everyone is stoned on the couch eating Cheetos and playing all day. I agree, if you are doing that then getting a call from a telemarketer can be fucking hilarious since they are paid to talk to you in the vain hopes of you remembering where you credit card might be. Under those circumstances I can entirely understand how one might want to get such calls. Kind of like reverse prank calling.
On the other hand, there are plenty of older people who are suffering without medications because some telemarketing company drained their bank account of a couple hundred dollars which they need. There are also plenty of people that when they get home are so busy making dinner, taking care of children, and basically dealing with 9 million more important things than getting a phone call every 5 minutes from somebody wanting to sell you something.
I'm all for it being both ways. Opt-in as well as Opt-out. That way all the grannies and stoner kids can sign up for a Telemarketer TeleBuddy(TM) and the rest of us can go on with our lives in peace.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, it depends on the day. When I used to skip all the time in highschool it was sometimes enjoyable to take a survey or just talk to someone. Gaming all day was fun, but it was nice to get some human contact - even if it was a marketer.
something tells me that your a sad sad kid :P
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do understand that only applies to pre recorded messages. Last time I checked you ccan't pank a message.
So look at the positive now all of our telemarketing calls are real people that we can screw with!
Thanks FTC for giving us more entertainment during extreme boredom.
Re:Useless (Score:4, Funny)
For example, I get into an argument with Kurt Cobain every time I hear "Come As You Are":
"And I swear that I don't have a gun"
Yes, you do.
"No, I don't have a gun"
Yes, you do.
"No, I don't have a gun"
Yes, you do...
/.ing have decoupled me from the requirement to have an actual person to talk to.
Years of Nirvana and
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
i always heard that as god, not gun.
Ah well. Excuse me while i kiss this guy.
The sky... kiss the sky. My bad.
Re:A good start. (Score:5, Informative)
Quit leaving that fucking hole in these things !
Why is this limited to just telemarketers? Debt collectors, campaigners, and non-profits need included.
I kept getting hammered by an automated call only leaving a number to call back.. A Google search turned up the number belonged to a collection agency in Chicago. They were hammering stale cases and my new number from a move just happend to be one of the numbers they had. If you don't speak english and thus unable to follow the instructions to call, there is no way to stop these calls as there is never anyone on the line to talk to.
I called them and told them to put me on their DNC list. They informed me that they were exempt as they were not telemarketers. WTF??? I expect this new thing to be full of loopholes also.
Parent
Re:A good start. (Score:5, Informative)
I have had the same thing happen to me many times and to friends and family as well. Here is the 411 for you:
1) They ARE exempt from all telemarketing laws. Everyone likes to bring that up on the phone, but they are actually right.
2) So what the fuck now? They are still not exempt from basic laws governing harassment. You could deal with your phone company or talk to a supervisor of the debt collection agency and threaten a lawsuit if they keep calling you, or you could just go to....
3) Deal with them under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They MUST inform of you their mailing address and the appropriate department. Send them a typed letter explaining that you are not the person they keep asking for, you have no knowledge of this person any debts this person has. Demand that all communications to that number cease immediately or you will seek remedies under the FDCPA.
Believe it or not, this works every time under the FDCPA. The reason why is that 99.9% of the people complain on the phone where the debt collection agency is not liable. Hardly anyone ever writes a letter.
Write the letter, it will stop. If it does not.. you have a $5,000 dollar insta-claim in a small claims court of your choice.
Parent
Re:A good start. (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, this works every time under the FDCPA. The reason why is that 99.9% of the people complain on the phone where the debt collection agency is not liable. Hardly anyone ever writes a letter.
Not everyone believes that it should be a requirement to write anyone a letter who calls to ask them to stop. With some phone numbers, it's less hastle and easer to simply get another number and drop the number that is on the bad boys list. One call fixes it instead of a letter writing campaign.
This phone abuse is one of the reasons phones & phone numbers are becomming disposable. They get clogged and die like an old email account.
The pitty is the numbers get recycled quickly to some poor unsuspecting new customer who then has to deal with the trash associated with the old phone number.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your example failed to demonstrate your point. How exactly did the phone company sell your number when you hadn't even setup a business phone number yet? How would the phone company know you opened a business and then associate it with your home number and sell it? No, what happened is that when you filed for your DBA, you provided your home phone number on the application, and the state sells lists of registered businesses.
I know this, because I've had the same thing happen to me for 2 businesses that I've
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't speak english and thus unable to follow the instructions to call,
With all due respect, if you ("you" in general, not the parent poster) can't speak English then what the fuck are you doing living in an English speaking country? I live in New Zealand and we get these stories all the time how there are special translation services being offered and suggested for those who are "English impaired". WTF? How are these people even allowed to immigrate here?
If I go live in China, I'm sure as hell they'd expect me to speak Chinese. Stupid socialist governments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is my entire problem with debt collections, there is basically no regulation and when you demand proof of a debt, if they drop the matter they are not required as far as I know to send you proof! What will often happened, is that company will transfer the "debt" over to another company (usually owned by the same people and usually to the guy in the cubicle next to the one that called you). So legally, now we have a different company with this "debt" to collect, they will hold it and then try to collect
Re:A good start. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A good start. (Score:5, Informative)
You are absolutely wrong about somebody deserving to be harassed by debt collectors. Nobody EVER deserves to be harassed under any circumstances. That is why there are large awards in civil court cases for collection agencies with too much "zeal".
This gentleman clearly indicated he was not the party they were looking for. Any calls that occur after this are, by definition, harassment. Now this harassment is not necessarily covered under the aforementioned FDCPA, but it does not have to be. This is no different than any other person or company repeatedly calling a random person after being asked to stop.
As you can see from the FDCPA, even IF the debt collection agency is calling the right person there are still rules governing their ability to call them after being asked to stop. You might want to look at:
Furthermore, at any time a person may send a letter to the collection agency asking that all telephone communications cease. Afterwards, the collection agency may only send letters to the person updating them on any actions being taken towards the debt.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you only wanted the line for DSL why did you bother connecting a regular phone to it?
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
Exemptions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually when government bans things like this, it exempts itself from the ban. For example, does this at all affect prerecorded political calls?
Re:Exemptions? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Exemptions? (Score:5, Insightful)
A law restricting political calls is almost guaranteed to be thrown out by the Supreme Court on the first challenge.
The right to speech does not imply the obligation to listen. As long as I still pay the phone bill, its my phone, and nothing in the constitution says I must share it.
Parent
Re:Exemptions? (Score:4, Insightful)
EXACTLY!!
They are not banning commercial, political, or unpopular speech in any way whatsoever. What they are acknowledging is that we all have a right to restrict who can invade our privacy, or interrupt our peaceful enjoyment of our property. There is a big difference between stopped in the middle of the street by someone asking you what you believe in or if you want a widget and a salesman sticking his foot in your door.
The telemarketing laws, and any resultant laws restricting political, charitable, or even religious telephone calls, would amount to nothing more than a "NO SOLICITORS" sign on your telephone instead of your front door.
This is incredibly important since there are so many ways a person can be communicated to these days. Instant messaging, SMS, MMS, VOIP, Email, etc. If we don't allow somebody the ability to restrict unsolicited communications on these channels, then they will become useless with an astronomically low signal to noise ratio. Before the telemarketing laws got enacted corporations were getting busy signals trying to contact people!
The basic principles and goals behind telemarketing and SPAM are the same. What is needed are new laws which encompass ALL of these channels at the same time and define what is unsolicited.
Political and Charitable marketing communications are by their very nature unsolicited.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. But when did a pre-recorded message become "speech"?
If McCain wants to call me to tell me bad things about Obama, let him, but then I want to hear him in person. His right to talk to me stops when he prevents himself from hearing me hanging up on him.
I also wish there was a way to temporarily block a phone for all calls except emergencies from numbers regis
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed it is. But free speech - political or otherwise - can still be harassment, which remains illegal. I'm hardly an expert on tort law (hell, I don't know if harassment is even falls into the category), but I see no reason you couldn't sue if not press criminal charges if it's serious enough.
One MAJOR item missing from do not call lists (Score:4, Interesting)
Currently, you're not able to opt out of receiving political or charitable calls. There are companies out there masquerading as charities and calling folks. I'm on their list and have been told several times that I cannot and will not be removed from their lists, because they don't have to.
Once the FTC fixes this, then I'll be impressed.
Lack of fundingn (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:One MAJOR item missing from do not call lists (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tell them to re-read the law and then report them. AFAIK They can cold call you. You may then tell that specific organization to not call you again and they must honor that request within 30 (or is it 90?) business days. If, after that time, they call you again they are subject to fines up to $11,000.
(I was a SysOp for ICT - a telecommunications/market firm ages ago and follow the laws fairly clearly. However, the .gov site is down at the moment, IANAL, and I don't follow the changes as closely as I should.
Is anybody willing to enforce the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes we've had laws against pre-recorded robotic marketing in Canada for decades. The problem is that neither the government nor the police are willing to enforce the law. When I get robots calling me up I make a complaint to the phone company and the phone company says they can't do anything about it because it is a police issue. When I phone the police up they tell me that they won't do anything about it because it is the phone company's responsibility to stop the illegal practice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't act on an individual complaint, but they compile them and if a company gets a number of them, the FTC goes after them.
That's pretty much what I was (finally) told (after calling back and forth between Bell Canada and the police) by the police. This means that I will continue to get automated robotic calls from the same companies (it has been happening for a few years already) until enough people decide to complain about it.
It's not a criminal issue, it is a civil.regulatory issue. So the police aren't involved.
According to what I was told by Bell Canada, it is a police issue. I agree however that the police should not have to get involved. I received no help or advice from either institution. I remember one ti
What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Informative)
...why aren't the pre-recorded messages about 'your vehicle warranty' and messages from 'cardholder services' illegal to begin with? They're basically fraudulent trolling schemes. They don't come out and say it, but they basically imply that they're something they aren't. Like "OH SNAP! YOUR CAR'S WARRANTY IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE, BLAH BLAH BLAH!" a less intelligent person might think this is actually real and important. Cardholder services? Please. "We're your credit card company, press 1 on your touchtone phone to lower your interest rate!" There's also that snail-mail spam claiming to be from your registrar, saying your domain is about to expire, and you have to pay them $29.95.
I get half a dozen of these calls a day. Not being comfortable with phones, I try to use them as little as possible, so it really pisses me off.
And the opt-out is a joke. I have 'been removed from the list' 17 times this week alone, for the exact same fucking 'cardholder services' recording!
Something else that is a joke is Anonymous Call Rejection, where calls are blocked if they have Caller ID blocked (Not Available) or are 'PRIVATE'. Too bad telemarketers know this, and therefor I'm still constantly getting calls from anonymous 800-numbers that are NAMED 'Private' and 'Not Available'. Assholes. I wonder if I can sue them under the DMCA for circumventing my apparent 'spamfucker security'.
cardholder services (Score:5, Funny)
First I pressed "1" for a live operator. Now to fuck with them and remain consistent, I made up a cheat sheet in advance. On it I wrote a fake credit card number, an expiration date, a fake "card not present" number, a fake SSN, fake balance, etc. They require you to have at least $3000 in debt and at least $2500 in available credit on at least one card to cover their fees.
One thing they ask for is the customer service number for the card so they can call your bank, which they do while you are on hold. So, I used this page of bank ID numbers [wikipedia.org] when making my fake credit card number, and I also googled my chosen bank's customer service number (I picked Wachovia). Also I rigged the number to validate by the Luhn algorithm [wikipedia.org] in case their systems check for that. This way we have a very plausible but totally fake credit card number which will hopefully pass any initial consistency checking they may do.
So I put this cheat sheet by the phone and waited for the call. Within a few hours, they called.
I answer their questions. First they ask about my debt. I tell them $9000 across two cards. I mention my "Wachovia Mastercard". They acknowledge knowingly and ask me to "verify" the card number "starting with the 5" thus suggesting they already know the card number. All Mastercards start with 5. I give them the fake number. They ask me to "verify" the expiration date. I give them the fake date. They ask for the customer service number on the back of the card. I give them Wahovia's number. They put me on hold for five minutes to call up Wachovia and negotiate me a lower rate.
"Wachovia says it's an invalid number. Can you re-read your card number?" I re-read the same number. They put me on hold again for several minutes. This repeats again. I reassure them that card is valid, that I just used it an hour or so ago, etc. They try again. They get a supervisor. He tries. It keeps coming back invalid. I waste forty five minutes of at least two people's time. Finally, as they apologize for not being able to help me, I calmly explain my ruse. What followed was a string of obscenities that even made my dog gag, followed by them abruptly hanging up.
And they haven't called me since.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you live in the United States of America don't look at the DNC laws but do a few minutes of research with the TCPA (1991) and file a few complaints. You *should* see some results fairly quickly. Complaints can even be filed online.
A final solution for these people (Score:5, Funny)
Here is the solution. We don't need to outlaw them. We need the law only two require two things:
1. Telemarketers MUST display a proper number for caller ID
2. Telemarketers may NOT block incoming calls
Then we all install auto-dialer programs on our PC's. We record a long, babbling message stating: "Thank you for your recent call. This message is to inform you that we do not wish to receive any automated calls from you, or any of your business partners, or anybody else, ever again. You may consider this our opt-out message. For your convenience, this message will automatically re-dial you every 30 seconds until you opt out of OUR auto dial promotion. You may signify your intention to opt out of our special, valuable auto-dial list by not calling us again for 6 months. Once you have opted out of our program by not calling us for 6 months, your number will be automatically removed from our calling list. Thank you, and have a nice day."
In other words, we would start clogging THEIR phones, and THEY would get pissed off. And the only way to get off of our autodial list is to stop calling us. You stop pissing us off, we will stop pissing you off.
Comments? Questions?
-Don!
Ban SPAM (Score:5, Funny)
Opting out (Score:3, Insightful)
an obvious, easy and quick way for consumers to opt-out of any call
You mean like, say, hanging up? There's really not much point unless you can opt-out before the call. Maybe they should create some kind of list of people that companies do not call - like the one they have now, but actually have it work this time.
Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Telephone communications are considered private, right? That is, unlike email, a phone conversation can reasonably be expected to be between only me and the party on the other end.
How can one then presume that a private activity such telephone communication should be treated as a broadcast medium? Political free speech is an exemption? Am I to let every politician come into my bedroom for a little pillow talk because of "free speech"?
The phone is a direct line into the heart of my private home. I don't want anyone in my home who I didn't invite.
You might say calling me is no different from coming up and knocking on my door. OK then, come up and knock on my door. Too expensive you say? Calling is more efficient you say? Well I believe the term was "free speech", not "cheap speech".
Oh, and when you do come knocking, don't forget to read the sign that says "No Solicitors". You know, the sign that sets the rules on my private property where I have certain rights also.
Tell you what, here's a good way to do it. Since I can't put a sign on my phone, why not make a rule that says if you want to call me you have to have come to my door and get me to sign a piece of paper that says I agree to take your calls. If that's too much trouble, then I probably didn't want to hear from you anyway.
Your law advocates a legislative approach... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amazing how versatile this document is.
Your law advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting telemarketing spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, however obviously doing the reverse, and having it opt-in, would exclude telemarketing almost entirely, (which would be a good thing, but not from their point of view, and their associates) and probably lead to things like bundling telemarketing plans with your phone bill, and if you opt-out there, your rates go up... so opt-out is probably a better option, although bundling may happen anyways as most people are becoming used to it now arbitrarily, hey why not tack it on as manditory?
[ ] I would lik
Re:From my own experience. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm just insensitive but when people make a voluntary decision to work somewhere that is propagating that sort of low-grade evil, I feel they take the good (higher pay) with the bad (people who you broke the law to disturb late at night yelling at you.)
It seems a bit foolish or arrogant to me, to think you deserve anything less than being held responsible for what you're doing.
I don't think the "I was just doing my job, and it was the only place that paid well" thing holds any credence.
Parent
Re:From my own experience. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just crap. Move if it's so bad where you live.
You sound just like people who justify joining gangs and committing crimes instead of finding honest work because there are just no other opportunities for them--the system is corrupt/racist/biased against them, so the only thing they can do is steal from honest people who have actually made something of themselves. There are always other options, but you were just too lazy or complacent to take them. You chose a scummy job, you have to live with that fact. Asking for sympathy because you didn't have enough self respect to better yourself and find a job that didn't involve making yourself part of the one of the most universally loathed classes on Earth is almost as contemptible as taking the job in the first place.
Any abuse a telemarketer gets is deserved in spades.
Parent
Re:From my own experience. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lastly, as much as these people irritate you, try your best not to lose your temper with them. Most of them are probably students like I was with terrible managers (the cream of the crap) and strict floor regulations that leave them tethered to their computer, sitting upright, unable to drink coffee or indulge in anything, taking calls for their entire eight hour shift with no breaks, having to sit idley while the death threats poured through the lines, having a one-minute-per-day bathroom break policy and doing it all for a paycheque a meaningless few dollars higher than a McD's salaryman.
If I can, by my actions, make it harder for the bottom-feeding telemarketing companies to operate I will do so. This includes making it so that even starving students are unwilling to work for these companies. By taking a job with these bottom-feeders you are part of the problem. Don't want the aggro? Don't take the job.
Parent
Re:From my own experience. (Score:4, Insightful)
"If call centres disobey all the previous rules and obligations, what makes you think they're going to adhere to this one? Especially call centres in India where these laws have little jurisdiction?"
Because the new rule says that if you call after 9pm, a B-2 Spirit will drop napalm on your call centre.
(Boy, wouldn't that be satisfying...)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hope to hell that the FTC comes down *hard* on these people.
Blacks and Indians?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that's what most people are complaining about.