[CLUE-Talk] Colorado's No-Call List

[Jeffery Cann]

On Saturday 11 May 2002 01:06 pm, jbrockmeier at earthlink.net wrote:

> Yes, I do have the right to refuse people the right to ring my
> doorbell (well, I don't actually have a doorbell, but that's not
> really the point...).

Just because you THINK you have the right to refuse to allow people to ring 
your (non existent) doorbell does not mean you actually have a legal right to 
do so.

> I don't own my apartment, either - 

Because you don't own your apartment means you have tenant rights, yet 
another specific type of legal rights afforded to you.  These are different 
than real property rights.  However, one of the basic rights for tenants is 
the right against unlawful searches (i.e., the right to privacy).  It's 
actually a constitutional right.  

Your landowner does have the legal right to enter your apartment under 
certain circumstances.  For example, suppose you are suspected of operating a 
meth lab.  Suppose the cops have a warrant to search your apartment for meth 
lab materials.  The cops knock with the warrant, but you are not home.  The 
landlord is obligated legally to let the cops in to your apartment.  This 
would not be true if you owned a house.  Only the owner would be able to let 
the cops in.

Check Article 13 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, these are the laws that 
govern your tenant and landlord rights:

  + http://64.78.178.12/cgi-dos/stattocp.exe?P&ttl=38&art=12

> but I still have the right to deny salesmen and so forth the right to knock 
> on my door. 

So, you also have the right to deny the police to knock on your door or 
anyone else?  I don't think so.

Let me make a distinction between 1) entering your apartment and 2) knocking 
on your door.  

The first point is protected under the Colorado and U.S. Bill of Rights.  
Here's the text for the Colorado Bill of Rights:

Article II Section 7.   Security of person and property - searches - seizures 
- warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and 
effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search 
any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the 
place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, 
nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to 
writing. 

The second point is AFAIK not protected by any laws.  A phone call is the 
same as knocking on your door.  The caller does not enter your property (in 
your case apartment).  Therefore, your thoughts that your rights are 
protected as if he were trespassing do not apply.

You do have the right to ask the person to leave your front door, just as you 
have the right to ask the person not to call you any more.  There is no 
difference between the knock on the door and a phone call.

> So, I don't really think the argument about whether or not I actually own 
> my phone line matters - 

Well, two posts ago, that was your point, here's your quote:

"Since I pay for my phone line, I consider it my right to refuse anyone the 
right to call me."

I read this as you think that a) you own the phone line, because you 'pay for 
my phone line' and b) because you own (pay for) the phone line, its yours.  
Therefore c) you have the same rights as you would for other personal 
property.  If I misread, I apologize.

> There are laws that recognize a person's "right" to the PHONE
> NUMBER which is actually what's being abused. I believe there are laws
> in place that are supposed to protect a person's ability to transfer
> a phone number if they switch service.

Again, the unsubstantiated 'there are laws' does not change my mind.  Only 
evidence, such as a legal brief or link to a statute that explains this will 
sway me.

> If the vast majority of people hate telemarketing, then I see no reason why 
> it can't be gotten rid of. 

Let's back up to 1930's Germany:

"If the vast majority (of Germans) hate Jews, then I don't see whey they 
cannot be 'gotten rid of'. "  

Seen in another light, I think your comments are obviously dangerous.  This 
is my point with respect to this part of our debate.  Sure, the genocide of a 
culture is certainly not the same as annoying telemarketers.  My point still 
stands that once you start delineating between what the 'majority wants' and 
sensible laws that limit bias, you have major problems on your hand.  1930's 
Germany was the result of institutionalized bias by their government.

> but that's largely a failure of the populace to pay attention to what their 
> elected officials are doing.

I suppose we could debate this for a while.  What about the bias from 
politicians caused by election donations?  I agree that we citizens are on 
the hook for a number of things, but the blame is not 'largely' our fault.   
Maybe 60/40?

Interestingly, despite the majority against telemarketing, how can you 
explain the fact that the majority wanted 'opt-in', but the law was written 
to be 'opt-out'.  Is this somehow largely the fault of the citizens or is 
there some other force at work, such as lobbyists for the telemarketing 
industry?

> These are apples and oranges. 

No they aren't.  You seem to believe the right to own a phone is guaranteed 
by law.  It isn't.  Just like a driver's license -- it's a privledge, not a 
right.

> I don't see why this is a bad thing. If you pay for it, it's should
> be yours to use as your private property until you cease paying for
> it.

If I don't like the speed limits on the roads, because my taxes pay for the 
roads and I own my car can you honestly tell me that you'll be able to ignore 
them without consequence?

Don't take this personally, but it doesn't matter what you think with respect 
to property.  What matters what is the current law.  

The fact is that you signed an agreement with your phone provider.  In 
exchange for money, you get phone service.  The phone company still owns the 
phone lines.  You are paying for the SERVICE -- i.e., the privilege to make 
and receive calls.  Since you do not own the line, you have no property 
rights.

Later,
Jeff