Senators Attempting To Remove Robocall Loophole 108
New submitter bearded_yak writes: Last week, it was reported here that a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill. In the end, the loophole survived. Now, several senators want to remove it with Senator Ed Markey's "Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls" (HANGUP) Act. Meanwhile, according to an article at Consumerist, "the Federal Communications Commission has nine months to craft rules dictating the conditions under which the government would be allowed to make these robocalls", so perhaps this loophole will meet its end before that time.
All Robocalls should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
But in case that never happens, you can just buy a call blocker and hook it up to your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only illegal to spoof the Caller ID for calls originating in the United States. Most debt collectors use offshore call centers and are therefore not required to transmit Caller ID.
E
Re: (Score:2)
It is only illegal to spoof the Caller ID for calls originating in the United States. Most debt collectors use offshore call centers and are therefore not required to transmit Caller ID.
E
Seriously? And are most American's happy to send money to an agency that contacted them via an offshore number?
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? And are most American's happy to send money to an agency that contacted them via an offshore number?
If it saves them a penny, yes.
Re:All Robocalls should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
But they didn't "contact them from an offshore number". They contacted them from a number in Ohio. It says so right there on their Caller ID.
That's the trick, right? If the call-center is off-shore, the Caller ID can say whatever they want it to say, because they're not bound by the CNID spoofing rules.
Re: All Robocalls should be illegal (Score:1)
That's why the law is useless. There should be a techinal secure solution, not a legal one.
Re: (Score:3)
I've received telemarketing calls where Caller ID displayed the number being called.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there. Done that.
Re:All Robocalls should be illegal (Score:4, Funny)
My only phone already allows me to block any number...
Mine has a whitelist. Mom Dad. And one I've had reserved for "girlfriend" for the last five years
Re: (Score:2)
But then how would we get to participate in fake surveys?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything that can be done about the increase number of robocalls I'm getting on my cellphone? I thought that was already illegal.
Re:All Robocalls should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess they could make it more illegal than it already is.....
The people doing it now don't care about the rules. If they get caught, they will just run away, shut down that AWS instance and boot up another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we all take advantage of that loophole and robocall all of our congress critters/senators and demand our share of the federal money. They currently owe every american citizen 100,000 dollars
It's actually the other way around. Each American owes $100k+ now, which they will have to collect through taxes, tariffs, fees and other ways of charging you, given that the government itself is prevented by law from making a profit and thus paying for it on your behalf.
But make no mistake, they will make you pay for your loans from foreign banks, investors and countries that you approved by electing congressmen who were in favor of taking up the loans.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that it commonly blocks known good callers if the phone company doesn't display the caller ID info fast enough. It keeps me from calling the house from my cell on a fairly regular basis. No bid deal, just redial. I have had complaints from several family members that it keeps dropping their calls, but that is a sma
Re: (Score:2)
Had an unlisted number when we had foster kids. The new number used to belong to some deadbeat. Started getting automated calls for Joseph T****. I was not him, so the calls continued for several months. The recording gave a callback number and the automated call did not have any option to talk to anybody. Did a search online to find the culprit and found a collection agency in Illinois. Called their direct number and asked to be removed from their telemarketing and add me to their do not call database
What is it with Congress's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because idiots need it literally spelled out for them. And since legislators, and most of their constituents, are idiots...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not really backronyms, as the drafters didn't say "We're calling this HANGUP, now go find a phrase that could stand for!" If staffers had come up with a better title that abbreviated to DIALTONE or NOCALLS they'd have gone with that. The military does the same thing, but they're far more apt to drop or include letters to make an appropriately military-sounding word. It's probably a pretty fun process! And you have to admit this one is better than most; the title isn't a tortured mess. They could ha
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Because I am an adult.
Re:Use A Whitelist (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an adult, and I rarely answer any number I don't recognize immediately. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail and I'll call them right back at the number they provide.
But since 99.99% of the calls I receive from un-recognized numbers are horseshit robo-calls, no, I agree with commenter above: Why on earth would someone answer the phone any more?
If these senators really wanted to help... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's so nice of you to want to protect us from spam. But you know what's even more annoying and threatening and expensive than spam?
Worse than spam, is stuff that "finds its way" into our laws without ever being attributed. The guilty parties are never punished or even informally shamed or identified so that anyone can ever vote approval or disapproval for that person in the next election.
Put an end to unattributed "malgislation" (eww, let's keep working on finding the right word) and then you'll really be heroes. I want every item in every bill to have a person's name on it. Let them continue to be as evil and un-American as they want with their laws, but let's stop allowing them to be irresponsibly anonymous when they do it.
Re: (Score:3)
What you want is "git blame" for bills.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with git blame is they keep forking it and assigning the bugs to the other party. We get to send our pull requests soon but it's unlikely to change and the new maintainers will not actually apply the patch.
Re:If these senators really wanted to help... (Score:5, Insightful)
Much like realistic campaign finance reform this will never happen because the system works the way the weasels in charge want it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I'd like to see Congress adopt some sort of revision control system. Wanna modify a bill? Check it out, make your change, check it in. Lotsa changes? Branch it. Every commit has somebody's name on it, no more "gee, I dunno how that got in there" BS.
That wouldn't work either. Senior congresspeople bully their juniors all the time into doing their dirty work. Want someone to support you in getting on the XYZ committee? You better sneak their pork into the "must-pass" bill for them. Etc. It's all power and influence behind the scenes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In WI, there's been an attempt by the legislature to reofrm the state's FOIA so that you can NEVER find out how things 'find their way' into bills. Such as exempting draft versions and authorship from requests.
Re: (Score:1)
I want every item in every bill to have a person's name on it. Let them continue to be as evil and un-American as they want with their laws, but let's stop allowing them to be irresponsibly anonymous when they do it.
It appears to have been introduced by Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky) [congress.gov]. I can't find reference to it anywhere else in the Congressional Record.
I want every item in every bill to have a person (Score:1)
I have fantasized about this for years. Glad someone else recognizes the need for this as well.
On another note, now we know why there are so many one-word campaign signs littering the landscape. The knuckleheads in Congress can't be bothered to find out what they are voting on, short of yet another acronym, and they assume we are equally shallow.
Sad truth is, much of the time they are right.
Re: (Score:1)
Put an end to unattributed "malgislation" (eww, let's keep working on finding the right word) and then you'll really be heroes.
"Illegislation"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not someone who has to deal with debt collectors so this isn't a problem for me. People who do have to deal with debt collectors generally did it to themselves so I have little sympathy.
Given that I get a dozen or more phone calls a week for either someone who had the phone number before us, or someone who was an in-law 15 years ago, I disagree. They apparently have the right to call whoever they want in search of the people who owe them money, not just the ones that owe them money.
And worse, the laws that protect the debtors do nothing to protect 3rd parties.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why this needs to be opposed. Robocalling costs the debt collectors almost nothing, so if they can robocall at will they'll just add any number to the list that might have anything to do with the debt they are trying to collect on. So expect that number of calls from debt collectors for people you don't know (or only know in passing) to go way up.
Google Voice (Score:1)
I use Google Voice to block robocalls. If a phone call comes in with no caller ID and doesn't leave a voicemail I add it to the block list. So far it has been quite effective.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you block it with no caller-id?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy ... use that as a blocking criteria.
I can't speak for Google Voice, but my Panasonic cordless phones have built in things which say "block calls from unavailable or private numbers".
If you are concealing your caller ID, my phone hangs up on you. Not my problem if you feel I should be answering your call without you telling me who you are.
And then the rest of the time it's some other bullshit like "The Microsoft" who want me to believe they're calling me because I have a virus. Or want to clean my duc
Better Journalism (Score:5, Informative)
Investigating "a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill":
I can narrow this down to having been introduced by the House. Commit 2015-10-28 pushed by House shows:
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
Previous 2015-05-22 revision committed by Senate
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
Diff places blame on house.
Perhaps an improvement would be
"The United States House of Representatives added a loophole for debt collection robocalls into the budget bill":
This is the limit of my journalism abilities here, but just hoping to make some improvement.
I would glad pay money for Slashdot if somehow the journalism could be improved.
Sigh (Score:2)
"Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls" (HANGUP) Act."
Your politicians spend far too much time thinking up cute names for laws, instead of enacting or repealing the bastard things.
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing a bill doesn't require the approval of 218+51+1 individuals, all with their own personal agendas as well as that of their political party.
Re: (Score:1)
The debtor lost the number a long time ago (didn't pay phone bills either.) Someone else gets the number; stuppid debt collectors refuse to believe they're calling a wrong number. Real debtors also claims "wrong number" when a debt collector calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the debt collection industry be calling anyone who is not a debtor?
Not sure if it was legal for them to do so, but debt collectors once called our residence looking for information about a neighbor who apparently wasn't picking up their calls or otherwise responding to them. Being debt-free or collections-free apparently doesn't keep a person collection-call-free.
Passive voice (Score:1)
"that a loophole for debt collection robocalls had found its way into the budget bill". Just like your English teacher might have done, I want to see this phrase re-written in the active voice. I want appropriate attribution for such a loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to see this phrase re-written in the active voice.
"Mistakes were made." "A police-involved shooting."
The language is full of these. Take a number and wait your turn.
How about the loophole for political campaigns? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just stop "Bridget at Cardholder services" (Score:2)
I get that call EVERY DAY on my cell phone, trying to offer me lower rates on my credit card(s). I've been getting the call every day for the last 2 years. I've tried just about everything. For an entire month I pressed 1 to talk to a representative and pretended to be interested to work my way up the chain, so that I could waste their time. I hoped that would get them to take me off the list. Didn't work. I have tried ignoring the calls, that doesn't work either. I have threatened them with everythi
Re: (Score:3)
Orlando. If you want to infiltrate the organization it's not that difficult. They place ads in craigslist there.
How to stop all Robocalls (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Americans hate robocalls. More Americans put themselves on the “Do Not Call” (DNC) list than voted for any presidential candidate. The law does not work for two reasons. First, the federal government refuses to enforce it so none of the robocallers end up in jail. Second, the politicians wrote loopholes for themselves and friends. Political campaigns are allowed to make robocalls as are certain kinds of political non-profits.
The only answer I can see is to create a political non-profit to advocate for the end of all robocals by using.... robocalls. Let’s call it the “ National Association To Stop ALL Robocalls” (NATSAR), and have the organization distribute to its members free software that allows them to randomly robo-call area code 301, 703, 202 and 212 numbers with a message saying “Hi, we are NATSAR and we want your support for legislation to make it a crime to send ANY unwanted /Marketing/Polling/Political message to a person on the DNC list. Would you like to join us?”. When the people in the DC area and NYC who run our government start getting 20 “political”- and thus legal- robocalls every day at dinner they’ll do something about it.
I spend time in the Virginia suburbs of DC and take my word for it they don’t get tons of spam calls like people in the rest of the country. Why? For the same reason that in the 1960s every city in the U.S. except Washington had a Mafia crime family. The deal was “We’ll leave you alone in DC as long as we get a free hand to operate in the rest of the country”.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I want a phone White List (Score:1)
Re:I want a phone White List...with a Pay Wall! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
This would be excellent, especially if you could easily refund the transaction - for example if a family member or a legitimate business with a real reason to contact you calls from an unknown number.
Re: (Score:1)
....and if it worked on spam too.
"Oh look, a puppy! A shiny thing! LOOK OVER HERE!" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You have to use capital letters if you want to be heard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the president is not all democrats right? He is a single democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Democratic party is totally homogeneous, just like the republicans?
%sarcasmometer explodes%
Citation needed. (Score:3)
Do you have a source for this? I do like the fact that they are trying to close the loophole before it is implemented but I can find little to back up your claim.
You might try to do your own homework at thomas.loc.gov, where everything is published for all to see.
No, when you cite an alleged fact, you should give the citation.
Presumably you have a citation, if it's a real fact and not something you made up. When you don't provide it, a pretty good guess is that either
(1) it's something you just made up, and hence I shouldn't waste my time to try to track the non-existent fact down with an internet search, or
(2) it was too much trouble for you to do the internet search to find-- and if it was too hard for you to find, being sarcastic about why I won't spend my time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I noticed you failed to cite that the burden of proof lies with them... *nods* ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This loophole has come from the White House for at least 3 years:
I quote from page 168:
Improve Treasury Debt Collection. -- ”The Budget includes two proposals that would increase collections of delinquent debt:
Provide authority to contact delinquent debtors via their cell phones.—The Budget proposes to clarify that the use of automatic dialing systems and prerecorded voice messages is allowed when contacting wireless phones in the collection of debt owed to or granted by the United States. In th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the budget from the House and senate also had the loophole. Blaming it on one person is childish. The question is realized who is fighting to stop it.
Re:Democrats asked for this loophole first (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats asked for this loophole first... now they want to remove it?
Once it became public the "lobbyist campaign donations vs. potential public backlash" equation changed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gives a shit about Democrat/Republican anymore? It's one big morass called "government" that screws over the people of the USA on a consistent basis. Arguing R vs. D only perpetuates this system and has gotten us precisely nowhere.
In my adult lifetime, I've seen Democrats in control of the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently (1993-1994 & 2009-2010) and I've seen Republicans have the same control (2001-2005). In each case, things only got worse for the average citizen.
Government is the proble
one group of asshats agrees with you (Score:2)
Two groups of asshats causing problems, no doubt about that.
> Government is the problem regardless of which of these two asshat parties happens to be in charge
"Government isn't the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem. " - Ronald Reagan
The republicans did pull a pretty good trick on the democrats a couple of years ago. The two parties couldn't agree on which government offices should get a budget "cut" (which means slow the growth of) and which ones to grow faster. So to ensure they'd ev
Re: (Score:2)
What sequestration? The latest budget agreement will keep increasing gov't credit ceiling past 2016, and no sequestration provisions are taking effect.
I think you're pretty delusional if you think there's a difference between Republican asshattery and Democrat asshattery.
Debt isn't budget. 3% growth instead of 6.5% (Score:2)
In the five years prior to sequestration legislation, from 2006-2011, federal spending increased from $2.65 trillion to $3.603 trillion. So it was growing 6.5% per year, on average.
Sequestration was passed in 2011 and didn't fully go into effect until early 2013. From 2013-2015, federal spending increased from $3.45 trillion to $3.68 trillion. That's 3% per year.
So it was growing at 6.5% per year before sequestration, and it's been growing at 3% afterwards. I call that a significant difference. it's not
PS, more dramatic than that, as %. 4.5% vs 1% (Score:2)
PS, the difference is actually more dramatic than that. Population and GDP increases a bit each year. GDP has been growing at about 2% per year, so federal spending (measured in dollars) can increase by 2% without increasing the government's the -percentage- or -share- of the money that government takes.
So while pre-sequestration, federal government spending increased at 6.5% per year, 2% is simply an increase in the economic size of the country, meaning the feds "share" of our paychecks increased by "only"
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't sequestration! That was negotiated agreements to cut gov't spending.
Sequestration was prearranged budgeting that would partially cripple of the military, in order to meet its operating budgeting, along with spending cuts which would have hit medicare, and other elective gov't spending, if the federal budget wasn't passed or the credit borrowing ceiling was exceeded. Those provisions never kicked in. The federal budget got passed every year in the Obama administration, as well as every ceiling
You're a tad confused. look it up (Score:2)
You're a bit confused. The Wikipedia article isn't a bad start. Sequestration was just extended until I think 2020. Some spending bills have been passed, none of which meet the parameters to break sequestration, because the Republicans haven't been willing to give the democrats a trillion more in pork in exchange for a trillion in republican pork. Not that they don't want it - they just don't want it badly enough to spend $2 trillion in order to get $1 trillion (especially the younger, more fiscally con