Flutterby™! : Do not call?

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Do not call?

2003-09-24 18:16:24.876944+00 by Dan Lyke 12 comments

Judge rules against FTC do not call registry. No indication of what impact this will really have. Relatedly, Mark Morford deconstructs the Comcast privacy statement. Someone's been putting databases together, because a telemarketer has called my phone number looking for Charlene, so we were itching for that October 1st to come by so that we could start to collect on this. Hope the Do Not Call registry eventually gets upheld.

[ related topics: Privacy Law Current Events Databases Mark Morford ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-25 02:11:17.949061+00 by: ebradway

In case you have something to sell, you can call the Federal Judge who struck down the Do Not Call List:

Judge Lee R. West Chambers: 405-609-5140 Home: 405-348-0818

Doncha just love Switchboard.com?

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-25 04:21:09.227997+00 by: Diane Reese

Maybe it's just a little speed bump:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La . . . promised "this will get cured tomorrow," saying that he was introducing a bill that would allow the do-not-call list to be implemented on Oct. 1. The Senate separately will introduce legislation to authorize the list, Tauzin said on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight.

Thanks for the phone numbers. Older Son is considering the most effective ways to make use of this data.

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-25 15:12:23.109756+00 by: other_todd

I'm in the "small speed bump" camp. The text of the ruling was so explicit as to what Congress did wrong that it was clearly intended to be an implicit set of instructions on how to do it right. (Especially since the judge himself seems to be in favor of the general idea of the registry.) Congress will just go back and give the FTC the correct powers the correct way - as outlined by the judge - and that will be that.

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-25 18:31:44.104271+00 by: Dan Lyke

The House has okayed legislation to fix the problems. C'mon Senate and Prez.

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-25 22:05:14.156812+00 by: Dan Lyke

Apparently U.S. District Judge Lee R. West's phone has been ringing off the hook. But the best part of this story is a quote from Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the weasels plaintiffs in the suit:

"U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting."

It's folks like that that make ordinary citizens believe death squads are a reasonable enhancement to government.

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-26 19:26:40.393491+00 by: Diane Reese

OK, got phone numbers for U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham of Denver? He's the guy who really needs more magazines and mortgages and window cleaners and financial planners at dinnertime, don't you think?

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-26 22:08:10.46083+00 by: Dan Lyke

The positive aspect of that is:

"The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech," Nottingham wrote.

If we can get take 3 to kill off the calls from the professional fundraisers as well, so much the better.

And here's the memorandum, opinion and order.

The ruling refers heavily to Rowan v. United states Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. at 738, 90 S. Ct. at 1491, which I think is based on the ability of the recipient to restrict mailings that the recipient deems obscene (I remember reading a bit on using that last bit to stop Radio Shack flyers recently...). This decision seems to say that because the Federal Trade Commission decided what sorts of calls couldn't go through, essentially the system wasn't broad enough. I am not a lawyer, but I read it as saying "you've got to ban political calls and charitable requests too".

If that's the take-away, more power to it.

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-27 03:22:57.14705+00 by: ebradway

Judge Edward W. Nottingham Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14 (303) 844-5018

There doesn't seem to a good hit on Switchboard for a home number. There is a Edward U. Nottingham in Denver and an E.W. Nottingham in Craig, CO (which is about 175 miles away from Denver).

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-09-29 10:58:01.713376+00 by: Lurker Below [edit history]

From anywho:

Residential Listings

Nottingham, Edward Us District Judge

1929 Stout St DENVER, CO 80294


#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-10-02 22:28:46.195055+00 by: Shamus

Ok, who wants to take legal action against the judge?

No, not for making what we consider to be a bad call on the "do-not-call", but rather for failing to be in compliance with FEDERAL law.

Go grab some information about Section 508 compliance standards, review his website, and file a greviance.

If we can't expect the website for the gov't body he represents to be in complaince with federal law, how can we respect his ruling on a different federal law?

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-10-02 23:13:41.481812+00 by: Shamus [edit history]

#Comment Re: Do not call? made: 2003-10-03 03:44:26.345492+00 by: Shamus [edit history]