Ian David
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-02-05 12:20 PM
Original message |
I can only think of 2 Bush policies that I agree with (at least partially) |
|
The National Do Not Call List has my 100% endorsement http://www.ftc.gov/donotcall/The CAN-SPAM Act has my partial endorsement http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.htmOh, and I also got a check from the IRS for $200. Yay. :sarcasm:
|
Kolesar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-02-05 12:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The do-not-call list put disabled people out of work |
|
My brother used to do that work. The telemarketers were employing people who could not get work elsewhere. If you are annoyed at the caller, all you had to do was hang up.
|
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-02-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Those jobs would have ended up offshore anyway, and we would still |
|
get the annoying phone calls....
|
eallen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-02-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Republicans gutted the CAN-SPAM act. |
|
And they tried to gut the DNC list.
|
Ian David
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-02-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Yeah, the DNC List could have been better, and CAN-SPAM is deeply flawed |
|
The DNC List has a dangerous loophole waiting to be exploited.
You can't call to SELL something, but non-profits can call and ask for donations.
Marketers can partner with non-profits to move their product: "Donate $100 to Save The Plankton, and we'll send you a free non-stick spatula (valued at $10) as our "gift."
I don't know if that's being done yet.
What concerns me most is the "pre-existing relationship" exemptions.
In any case, while DNC List is flawed, it's working well enough to make me happy.
CAN-SPAM is almost completely useless, but it's a good step forward until the 2008 congress makes something better.
The big ISPs-- Yahoo, AOL, MSN-- are getting judgments against spammers. But what sucks is those same companies are either engaged in or seeking business relationships with the "spam-havens" that host the spammers they're suing!
In other words, they're suing the spammers while forking over millions to the companies that refuse to delete the spammers' websites.
That's like putting Iran on the list of prohibited countries and then having Halliburton do business with them...
I think that spammers who cross a certain threshold should be considered Enemy Combatants.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |