---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <eaabf80c-df0e-4885-b580-d0170588eb67@googlegroups.com> Date: 4 May 2019 11:02:08 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Arizona joins majority of nation in enacting texting while driving ban On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 3:56:46 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote: > A number of states also have laws that say you can only talk with > hands-free phones. The idea of hands-free communication is being pushed hard as the safer alternative in some states. In my opinion however, it is the _conversation_, not holding the phone itself, that is the distraction and danger. A cell phone conversation is not the same as talking to a passenger in the car; a very different dynamic. The problem is that virtually everyone talks on their cell phone while driving, so I can't see people giving this up. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <F9FCF6D7-517D-4FFB-A6D7-45D92A994503@roscom.com> Date: 4 May 2019 18:34:30 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Would You Let the Police Search Your Phone? We are much more likely to give consent than we think. By Roseanna Sommers and Vanessa K. Bohns Law enforcement officers on the doorstep threatening to "come back with a warrant" is a clich=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD of police procedural dramas. T= hings are much less dramatic in real life: The officers ask if they can take a look around, and the civilians say yes without putting up a fight. A key question in so-called "consent-search" cases is why people so readily agree to allow intrusions into their privacy. The answer, as we argue in a forthcoming article in The Yale Law Journal, is that psychologically, it's much harder to refuse consent than it seems. The degree of pressure needed to get people to comply is shockingly minimal - and our ability to recognize this fact is limited. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/police-phone-privacy.html ------------------------------ Message-ID: <9DF189BE-11C3-4492-AFAF-283BCCA250C9@roscom.com> Date: 3 May 2019 21:34:34 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Congress Is Ready to Attack a Common Enemy: Robocallers Swamped by angry constituents demanding action and bedeviled themselves by obnoxious and fraudulent robocalls, Congress is springing to action. By Catie Edmondson WASHINGTON - Representative Darren Soto's phone rang just a half-hour into the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing this week on the surge of robocalls clogging the nation's cellphone lines. He ducked off to take the call only to hear a recorded voice float a lucrative offer to buy his home. "We're all being inundated," Mr. Soto, Democrat of Florida, said plaintively when his turn came to speak at the hearing. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/us/politics/stop-robocalls-congress.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** I disagree with Ms. Edmondson: Congress is not "springing" into *ANYTHING*. It is oozing toward another round of hearings and press releases and new bills "introduced" by every representative that wants some free ink for their biennial exercise in what Barney Frank called "Sloping the hogs." There are certain exchange codes in the Washington, D.C. area that *EVERY* marketing company knows are off-limits, and the phones served by those exchanges *NEVER* get robocalls. Those phone numbers are reserved for those who can actually hurt the profiteers, not for hoi polloi, and Mr. Soto will no doubt be changing his cell phone number from whatever it used to be in Florida to one of those reserved for the hog farmers who pick low-lying fruit and money off the trees. You and me, dear reader: *WE* are the hogs. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sun, 05 May 2019