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

Sat May 11 19:39:12 MDT 2002

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Jeffery Cann wrote:

> 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.

Well, in your previous post you mentioned that I can, in fact post a
sign saying "no solicitors" or "no tresspassing" which effectively
denies anyone the right to step onto my property if they are a solicitor
or stranger -- with certain exemptions, but salespeople are not one of
those exceptions. 

> > 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.  

Unlawful search and seizure is far off topic here. As much as I dislike
telemarketing, I've never come home and found a telemarketer going through my
belongings. They've never broken down the door to my apartment. 

> 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.

Well, this is all true - but hardly relevant. Obviously the owner of the
property has the right -- in limited circumstances -- to enter the 
apartment. Yes, you're right - I don't own my phone line. Neither do the
telemarketers. So they have no rights to fall back on here at all. 
Telemarketers have no claim over my phone, telephone line or
anything - they're just parasites trying to make a buck.   

> 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.

Again, you're stretching things. Police !== door-to-door salesperson. 

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

I'd hoped you would have made a distinction between police and salespeople...

*snip*

> 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.

What about telemarketers that tie up my phone line with recorded 
messages -- even when I have a specific service to tell telemarketers
I do not want phone calls, and to remove me? More than once in the
last month I've gotten a call that ties up my line until the recording
is finished. 

I suppose the analogy of knocking on the door is close, but I still
consider the phone call more intrusive. Probably because I get -- maybe --
one or two unwanted visits at the door a year, compared to three or
four unwanted phone calls a week - despite paying for a service to
get rid of telemarketers. God only knows how many calls I would get
if I didn't have that... 

> > 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.

I think you're interpreting a little too specifically. I suppose I should 
have said "Since I pay for my phone SERVICE..." 

Here's the logic: 

1. I pay for the line/service/number.
2. Since I'm paying for the service, I should have a right to determine
who uses it.
3. Minus my paying for the service a telemarketer cannot call me. 
Therefore when they do call me, they are utilizing a service that I PAY
FOR without my permission and with a reasonable suspicion that I do not,
in fact, wish to hear from them. 
4. Abusing that service for advertising purposes is a form of trespassing.
Or maybe theft of services is more appropriate. 

> > 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.

Well, then you'll have to remain unswayed because I can't find it on 
Google. I recall reading a story in the Post about adding mobile phone numbers
to phone numbers that phone companies are required to transfer. Sorry,
but if you require further evidence than that, you'll have to just 
decide to continue believing otherwise.   

> > 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'. "  

I believe there is a long-standing tradition on most newsgroups that 
basically declares any discussion dead when someone has to resort to 
the Nazi argument. I can't believe you stooped to it, frankly. 

> 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.

Really? Okay, well if we want to stop delineating between what the
majority and minority want in this country then we ought to stop making
gambling, prostitution and other forms of "business" illegal. We should
also stop enforcing the "majority" view of marriage and allow same-sex
marriage and polygamy. 1930's Germany was far beyond "institutionalized
bias." The differences between 1930's Germany and making telemarketing
illegal are so vast I'm not even going to try to bridge the gap.  

I noticed that you totally ignored the example of nude advertising. Why? 
You're in favor of one but not the other? Or you simply don't want to try
to justify why it's okay to make one illegal and not the other? Obviously
you're comfortable with some limits - you're just not comfortable with
the limits that I propose.   

> > 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?

Do you think that they would continue to display that bias if they
were systematically voted out whenever they favor business interests
over the interests of the majority of their constituents? Ultimately
the blame lies with the voters. Yes, some blame falls on the shoulders
of the legislators - but we make it all too easy for them to go 
against the wishes of the public by not holding them responsible for
their actions. If you knew you were not really going to be accountable
for your actions, it would be very easy to decide to take the path that
is in your best interest rather than the interest of the general public.   

> 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?

Obviously the industry had a hand in the legislation - but it's our fault
(collectively) for not making it clear that if our legislators don't
listen to our interests, they won't be in office long. In this case, 
the industry is just protecting its interest - and as long as people just
sit back and take it the companies have the advantage. 

> > 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 never said anything about the right to own a phone, I'm merely 
talking about rights to direct the way that a service you pay for
is used. Again, you didn't address the actual argument about the real issue:
The operation of a telephone is not the same as the operation of a 
television or computer.  

Do I think I have a right, constitutionally, to phone service? Of course
not. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that if Qwest randomly decided
that they didn't want to provide phone service for me, that there wouldn't
be anything I could do about it even if I had proof that I paid all 
my bills on time and so forth. 

> > 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?

Okay - way off track here. Phone == service I pay for exclusively. The phone
company may own the phone line, but (unless I'm on a party line, if there
are any still extant) when I pay for phone service then I am the only 
person who is supposed to have use of it. (And any other authorized residents
of course...) Roads == something paid for collectively by everyone who
pays taxes. Of course I can't make the rules for the roads, I don't
have any claim of exclusivity over them.  

In fact... here is an example of a service that people collectively 
get to decide how it's used. We wouldn't have speed limits if people
didn't want them - and when the limits were set so low that people
felt they were annoying, they grumbled until they were raised - even
despite studies that indicated that "55 saves lives." So... it's a bit
hard to argue that the majority doesn't have the right to decide that
they want to outlaw telemarketing, but they can push for higher speed
limits that will arguably result in more highway deaths. If we're
willing to sacrifice a few lives in order to get from point A to point
B faster, we can't decide to get rid of telemarketing so we can get
through dinner without being interrupted?   

> 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.

Actually, I didn't sign or agree to anything. I called, I gave them an 
address and date for service to be started and I send in a check every
month or so to pay for it. I didn't agree to any terms of service, though
they may have terms of service of some sort. 

Again, maybe property rights are the wrong analogy. Maybe this is more
like a theft of service. I can live with that, either way it's still
something that I don't want going on. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier -=- jbrockmeier at earthlink.net
http://www.DissociatedPress.net/
ymessenger: jbrockmeier / AIM: ZonkerJoe
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off 
their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more." - Mark Twain