Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.dcom.telecom > #242 > unrolled thread

Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom]

Back to article view | Back to comp.dcom.telecom

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom] "\(PeteCresswell\)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2011-03-30 09:55 -0400
    Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom] danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2011-03-30 14:28 +0000
      Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom] danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2011-03-30 17:38 +0000
        Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom] "Pete Cresswell" <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> - 2011-03-31 11:06 -0400
        Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom] "Pete Cresswell" <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> - 2011-03-31 13:12 -0400

#242 — Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails [telecom]

Per Michael Moroney:
>Speaking of which, how does "Rachel" and her gang get into the public
>telephone system with such high volume, undetected (undetected enough
>so that apparently nobody can seem to find them) ?  VOIP?

According to the letters I've been getting from the Pennsylvania
Attorney General's office (in response to my filing complaints
about telemarketing calls to my cell phone), telemarketers are
using VOIP services to spoof callerIDs, relaying calls between
providers, and moving offshore - all of which, according the atty
gen's office, make prosecution impossible for them.
-- 
PeteCresswell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#244

In <oed6p6hb51hiesvf0ppuhdh6a484j1nkuk@4ax.com> "\(PeteCresswell\)" <x@y.Invalid> writes:

>Per Michael Moroney:
>>Speaking of which, how does "Rachel" and her gang get into the public
>>telephone system with such high volume, undetected (undetected enough
>>so that apparently nobody can seem to find them) ?  VOIP?

>According to the letters I've been getting from the Pennsylvania
>Attorney General's office (in response to my filing complaints
>about telemarketing calls to my cell phone), telemarketers are
>using VOIP services to spoof callerIDs, relaying calls between
>providers, and moving offshore - all of which, according the atty
>gen's office, make prosecution impossible for them.

Which, of course, is total garbage. Just get ahold of someone
who's been scammed by these folk and trace the credit card
transaction.

Could "Rachel" get away with this for a few weeks? Sure. But
this specific group has been active for over a year. And
the calls are coming to my numbers in multiple parts of
the country.

- What I don't understand is why the FCC/FTC are doing
diddly squat. Well, I can understand why that would be
their initial position, but Congressional folk are getting
hefty numbers of complaints. (And they're getting their
own batch of calls, too).



-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

***** Moderator's Note *****

Congressmen have _all_ their numbers on a special "don't even think
about it" list, which _every_ telemarketeer obeys carefully. After
all, Congressmen are much more important than ordinary people, so they
can't be having their time wasted.

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249

In <imvelm$spv$3@reader1.panix.com> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> writes:
[snippeth]
>- What I don't understand is why the FCC/FTC are doing
>diddly squat. Well, I can understand why that would be
>their initial position, but Congressional folk are getting
>hefty numbers of complaints. (And they're getting their
>own batch of calls, too).

>***** Moderator's Note *****

>Congressmen have _all_ their numbers on a special "don't even think
>about it" list, which _every_ telemarketeer obeys carefully. After
>all, Congressmen are much more important than ordinary people, so they
>can't be having their time wasted.

But that's part of why I don't understand the FTC/FCC ass sitting.
Senator Charles Schumer [D-NY] himself, while at a meeting on Capitol 
Hill, got one of these calls to his cell phone. And he went publicly
ballistic over it. Yet this garbage, especially the "Rachel"
calls, continue to this day.

"But here comes the cavalry! Senator Chuck Schumer says 
 he's "had enough" - after getting a robocall about fraudulent 
 car warranty renewals during a health care meeting on Capitol 
 Hill last week, he held a Sunday press conference to demand a 
 Federal Trade Commission investigation into the businesses 
 behind the calls..."

http://gothamist.com/2009/05/11/schumer_calls_for_investigation_int.php


-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#255

Per danny burstein:
>Senator Charles Schumer [D-NY] himself, while at a meeting on Capitol 
>Hill, got one of these calls to his cell phone. And he went publicly
>ballistic...

That is the best news I've heard in a long time... and now I feel
like I can stop obsessing over the issue.

Now that people in power are getting irritated by it, something
will be done.

Only bad outcome I can see - short of them having assistants
screen calls - is some technological solution that they can
afford and the rest of us cannot.   
-- 
PeteCresswell

***** Moderator's Note *****

The solution they _can_ afford *is* to have assistants screen calls. I
have written on this before: privacy is a privilege of the rich, and
trying to use technical means to prevent intrusions is like setting a
burglar alarm on Fort Knox and leaving town.

Privacy is valuable, and the Elites of our society have always known
it. Some of them make a lot of money by invading ours, so they won't
allow us to have it. 

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#257

Per danny burstein:
>>Congressmen have _all_ their numbers on a special "don't even think
>>about it" list, which _every_ telemarketeer obeys carefully. 

The cynic in me thinks "Of course....".

But can anybody document/cite in support of that?
-- 
PeteCresswell

***** Moderator's Note *****

I cannot provide chapter and verse: all I have to go on is a
conversation I overheard between a manager and a technician at a
company which provided custom-made call-handling setups for
telemarketers. The manager reminded his tech to be sure that the
"crybaby" list was put in first, before the do-not-call disks, and the
tech laughed, and said he'd make sure that
<well-known-elected-official>'s name was on it. The manager rebuked
him, saying that "Nobody wants to piss off the congress", and I took
that as meaning that the "crybaby" list was for Congressman.

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.dcom.telecom

csiph-web