Replies

Some would say that the difference is that telemarketers are trespassing when they come on their private phone. Of course they don’t say the same about unwanted commercials on their private television, and they don’t mention they connected their phone to a public network with the implication and understanding that anyone could call.

Some would say that it becomes trespassing when they caller refuses to obey the do not call list. But they don’t address how arbitrary the selection of “just business telemarketers” is when they authorize this new role for the government. They don’t acknowledge that a future administration could assemble a “hate speakers list” or an “intolerance list” and require they check who doesn’t want to be contacted. They could even require websites such as this one to be flagged with that label so that kids don’t accidentally stumble onto this “annoyance”. They also don’t address why if you can require a telemarketer to check your name before annoying you with their “trespass”, someone else can’t tell specific minorities or religions to check a list before trespassing. They don’t say why a solicitor that annoys someone should be treated defiantly than a minority, evangelist or even a charity that someone finds universally annoying.

Despite all of this, I’m not strongly against it, at least this is not the hill I want to die on defending a principle. More egregious violations of the Constitution are practice with less beneficial results.

I don’t think that just because hundreds of thousands of people are employed at something that their employment has value to society. I think that most of telemarketers are rip off artists, and I don’t think that putting them out of business is a bad result. I’m just wary of the unintended consequences. I don’t buy the “privacy” argument for all the reasons above, and I don’t like the scope creep of our federal government’s powers, especially spearheaded by Republicans.

Some would say that the difference is that telemarketers are trespassing when they come on their private phone.

That's me.

Of course they don’t say the same about unwanted commercials on their private television...

...because those commercials pay for the programming on my TV. Last I checked telemarketers are not paying part of my phone bill. Incidentally, I voluntarily initiate the action of watching my TV; calls by telemarketers are a unilateral and unwanted intrusion which I have no power to stop, aside from disconnecting my phone.

and they don’t mention they connected their phone to a public network with the implication and understanding that anyone could call.

Perhaps that was your implication/understanding, but it certainly isn't mine. My home is connected to a public network of roads and sidewalks - certainly that doesn't mean I must entertain door-to-door sales pitches during dinner.

I don’t think that just because hundreds of thousands of people are employed at something that their employment has value to society. I think that most of telemarketers are rip off artists, and I don’t think that putting them out of business is a bad result. I’m just wary of the unintended consequences. I don’t buy the “privacy” argument for all the reasons above, and I don’t like the scope creep of our federal government’s powers, especially spearheaded by Republicans.

I am squeamish anytime the government is given more control but, like the smoking bans, this is an attempt to reign in a group of rude and obnoxious people who have ignored pleas to police themselves and respect the wishes of others. Government regulation is a last resort, not a first option.

Such regulations also carry a double risk - 1) that the offending party will simply come up with more ways to be rude and annoying and 2) that the government won't turn it into a power trip and overstep the authority granted to them.

I always have the choice to turn off the tv or the radio if it annoys me (that's why it's off 90% of the time). I always have the choice to seek another website that doesn't offend me (that's what a "favorites" list is for). While some people have the choice NOT to answer the phone, that isn't true of all people - particularly those who work out of their home or are dealing with family emergencies.

When my phone rings during the day, I stop what I'm doing, head for the Caller ID box and see what number is being dialed. If I don't recognize it, I don't answer. But my train of thought and whatever I was doing were already disrupted because the phone rang. What's truly annoying is when the call is made by some auto-dialer which then delivers a canned pitch to my answering machine.

NO HUMAN BEING IS CALLING ME. A computer is. NO HUMAN BEING IS TALKING TO ME. A machine is. And yet I'm forced to put more effort into ignoring this damned nuisance than they are in creating it.

THAT deserves to be outlawed and yet there's nothing I can do about it. Now politicians have entered the racket and I am trying to make it clear to everyone - even candidates I agree with - that they've jettisoned my vote the minute I learn I've been added to their autodialer. That's the only way I can fight back (short of violence).

If Al Qaeda wants to come blow up some telemarketing firms, that's just fine and dandy with me. I'll be glad to give them some names. Might as well put those Islamic pricks to some worthwhile cause...