TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: FTC Do Not Call List

Re: FTC Do Not Call List
12 Dec 2005 13:37:22 -0800

Lena wrote:


I agree with Lena.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I quite agree with your assessment, but
> my point was what makes _your_ telephone any more sancrosanct than _my_
> computer. If _you_ have the right to dictate who can call you on
> _your_ phone, then _I_ should have the right to dictate what kind of
> messages come through on _my_ computer. ...

I think all of us consumers agree that we don't want any spam emails at
all and no soliciting telephone calls at all.

Congress, in its infiite wisdom and infinite lobbying, finally put
some limits on telemarketing. They do not go as far as we consumers
want, and more restrictions need to be applied. The telemarketers
have a powerful lobby and fight against this stuff. I think what Lena
is suggesting a compromise that could get through Congress.

In response to other posts, telemarketers representing charities, past
business relationships, and political issues ARE permitted to call
just as before and you can't stop them; they're exempt from
regulation. Even if you told candidate Smith not to call you, in the
next election candidate Jones will call you.

I don't understand at all why there's no "no-spam" law passed. I
don't know who represents the spamming interests and would think those
supporting no-spam would be quite vocal and organized. I think one
problem is the openness of the Internet where it is very hard to trace
where spam truly comes from, it apparently is very easy for spammers
to forge their origin points or actually hijack someone else's
computer to do their duty work. To me, that kind of thing should be a
serious felony offense. I understand another problem is that much
spam originates overseas (along with a lot of illegal porn).

I don't understand Internet message addressing, but it seems to me any
initiated message should have a secured sender's address address.
There should be some technical way that something like that is
reasonably tamper proof so it works reliably. Such an address would
cut down "phising" and other fraudulent and abusive activity now going

Some people get very upset with that idea because they want
"anonimity". Fine. Let's set up a completely separate Internet that
is anonymous, without verifiable addresses (like now). People who
want to interchange on that are free to do so, with all that entails.

For those of us who take our Internet use a little more seriously, we
should have a separate secured system where only messages and screens
from properly authenticated sites are permitted. You would have to
use (intentionally) two different browsers, one for the garbage, one
for serious stuff.

I don't understand why some people just love "mob rule". Civilization
grew out of the development of rules for us to live by--basic manners
and organization. It's how we get anything done in society. Random
folk talk is fine for a bar.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Carl Zwanzig: "Re: Hypothetical SxS Question"
Go to Previous message: Lena: "Re: FTC Do Not Call List"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page