Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: [internetworkers] Federal judge blocks do-not-call list

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "K. Jo Garner" <kelly AT metalab.unc.edu>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Federal judge blocks do-not-call list
  • Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:12:51 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, zman wrote:
->
->On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, K. Jo Garner wrote:
->> Hey, so are you offering to pay the charge for monthly service for caller
->> ID as well as the equipment (caller ID capable phone) necessary? No? Then
->> perhaps the understanding of not getting unsolicited calls at home
escapes
->> you.
->
->I agree, I don't see how they can weigh the "right to free speech" over
->the "right to privacy". A "no soliciting" sign works pretty well outside
->the house to.

Well, there's the "No Trespassing" thing: you'd think that since you have
private property you'd have relief from people sneaking around in your
yard. However, unless you post a sign to the contrary (or speak directly
to the person(s) who are crossing your property) they can traipse all they
want. So, to me, the Do Not Call list seems to fulfill the "No
Trespassing" sign requirement without infringing on the rights of others
to accept those calls. Currently, you have to speak directly to the
company that places those calls in order to be removed - without being
able to simply stop them incoming in the first place.

Cheers
KJ


--
---
www.answerbag.com - "It's in the Bag"
http://www.ibiblio.org/kelly -=*= kelly <@> unc.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page