vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) (04/10/89)
In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required to be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is required before you can connect the computer interviewer. Unfortunately, as they don't heavily advertise the existance of this law (actually, I believe it is a utilities commission regulation) very few people register complaint when they get an unsolicited computer call. Bob
brian@apt.UUCP (Brian Litzinger) (04/11/89)
From article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, by vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef): > ... All computer generated calls are required to > be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is > required before you can connect the computer interviewer. > > ... very few people register complaint when they get > an unsolicited computer call. How do I register a complaint with, and how do I identify the culprit? The computer generated calls I have received did not identify themselves in any way. Seems like Automatic Number Identification (ANI) could fix this problem. -brian <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> UUCP: {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian brian@apt.UUCP <> VOICE: 408 370 9077 FAX: 408 370 9291
dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) (04/12/89)
In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes: > In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from > electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required to > be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is > required before you can connect the computer interviewer. If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging data. What a pain -- paying human beings to make live introductions before switching to DATA mode when the modem calls another modem... I doubt many of the folks there will be able to stay "networked" at such a cost! -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/
jbrown@herron.uucp (Jordan Brown) (04/12/89)
brian@apt.uucp writes: > How do I register a complaint with, and how do I identify the culprit? > The computer generated calls I have received did not identify > themselves in any way. The phone company will take complaints, as I recall. One way to get their identity is to pretend to take them up on their offer - give the machine a phone number and name, and when they call get their company name and phone number. (Of course, tell them that now that you've heard the details you're not interested.) (Alternatively, you could tell them that they're bad folks and you're going to report them.) I did this once with some company or other; the telco (or maybe PUC; it was a long time ago) took the info and said they'd deal with it.
jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) (04/12/89)
In article <1193@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes: >> In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from >> electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required to >> be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is ... >If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. >We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet >community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging >data. What a pain -- paying human beings to make live introductions >before switching to DATA mode when the modem calls another modem... ... Except that the act of setting up the connection (phone numbers, passwords, etc.) implies consent on the part of both parties to exchange data.
victoro@crash.cts.com (Victor O'Rear) (04/13/89)
1. Who do yo complain to? My local Bell telephone business has gratefully taken my complaints in the past when I have any shread of information to give them. Usually they have the ability to determine who is breaking the law and then refusing service to them.. or something. 2. How do I know who made the call? Usually a contracted advertising firm. Just sit thru the call and write down any names, phone numbers, or contacts. There is the story of one person who arranged a sales visit - obtained a business card and tossed the salesperson out. Followed by a call to #1 above. -- =============================================================================== | Victor O'Rear {hplabs!hp-sdd, cbosgd, ucsd, nosc.mil}!crash!victoro | | USnail: P.O. Box 3972, La Mesa, California 92044, United States of America| | mil : crash!victoro@nosc.ARPA and work: (619) 571-1222 | | | | "Fools, Idiots! Don't they realize that they are dealing with forces | | beyond comprehension!" - "Doctor Science" | ===============================================================================
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (04/14/89)
In article <1193@westmark.UUCP>, dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes: ] ] In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from ] ] electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required to ] ] be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is ] ] required before you can connect the computer interviewer. ] ] ] If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. ] We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet ] community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging ] data. What a pain -- paying human beings to make live introductions ] before switching to DATA mode when the modem calls another modem... ] I doubt many of the folks there will be able to stay "networked" at ] such a cost! ] People seem to be making more out of this than is necessary. The keywords seem to be 'unsolicited' [in the original posting about ads] and 'receivers approval' in this case. If you are using a BBS you are giving you are the one making the call, so if there are ads on the BBS, and you don't like them, it is your right not to call that BBS. Like TV. As far as usenet batch calling, if two computers call each other, they have each others approval also. That's what the password is for. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (04/15/89)
In article <1193@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes: >> In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from >> electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required to >> be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is >> required before you can connect the computer interviewer. > >If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. >We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet >community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging >data. I believe that the key operational word in the bill is UNSOLICITED calls. I have no problems if calling my modem without previous arrangements with me becomes an illegal act. Every Usenet connection I know of exists with the prior consent of the owner/administrator of the system called. As long as the word "unsolicited" appears in the language of the bill, Usenetters and other legitimate computer networkers need not fear. Longish .signature follows. Skip now, or don't complain. Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg 1601 Technology Drive BIX: gwage San Jose, CA 95110-1397 CIS: 74016,352 (408) 437-5198 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN ------------------ "Live Free; Die Anyway." ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) (04/16/89)
In article <887@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM>, greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) writes: > In article <1193@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: > >In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes: > >> In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from > >> electronic systems. All computer generated calls are required... ... > >If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. > >We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet > >community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging > >data. > I believe that the key operational word in the bill is UNSOLICITED > calls. ... > As long as the word "unsolicited" appears in the language of the bill, > Usenetters and other legitimate computer networkers need not fear. I agree. But the original posting never mentioned the word 'unsolicited' anywhere. It merely stated that in California, all computer-generated calls must be announced by a live person. I posted my original followup in the hopes that someone would either expand upon the original posting (as Greg has - thank you!) or else initiate legislation to correct the legislation to make it say what it probably meant! -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/