Live data from Hacker News

Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

nytimes.com

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's against the law for collection agencies to call you if you tell them not to.

Oh! If it's against the law , surely that will stop annoying phone calls! How did we not think of that easy solution to the problem!?

You can actually sue them if they do call you after you tell them not to for $1200 per violation. Is also illegal for them to call mobile phones. This technology actually cropped up because collection agencies are getting backlash from using robo dialers. I'd argue collection agencies are much more regulated than telemarketers. Google the FDCPA law.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#212
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under that scheme, if I called my own line by dialing my own DID, I'd end up with a completed loopback call rather than a connection to my voicemail inbox.

I don't know how phone systems work, but in any other programming scenario, a quick if..else would fix that.

To translate into Internet-engineering terms: assume that you might be having to call out through a proxy server (this is true when you e.g. have to "dial 9" to reach an outside line.) If your own phone is public-routable (i.e. your extension has its own DID, and that's what you're calling), then the routing system outside the device will have no idea that what you'll reach is, in fact, your own device. The origin of the call will appear to the POTS system as just "the PBX" (a NAT, basically); and the destination will appear to your PBX as just some anonymous public number owned by a phone company, that happens to proxy back to your own extension on the PBX when you request it. So neither the POTS system nor your PBX will be able to recognize what's going on. (I mean, you can manually program associated numbers into the PBX, but by doing so you're denormalizing DID mappings: they'll break as soon as someone's number changes on the POTS side.)

Much better if dialing out on a line just takes an exclusionary lock on the line so that it can't be dialed into; then anything that forwards back to that line, at any level of indirection, will be told the line is busy and will step to the next part of the call-tree.

(Note that this becomes important when you're trying to e.g. get a [random peer of your support-level] on the line for a consult in tech support, by "adding" to the call the same ring-group you're in. Exclusionary locking here is what ensures that you won't end up adding yourself to the call.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#213
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took an evil job. I'm fine with them getting a poor performance review.

I would take an evil job to feed my family if I had no other choice; sometimes people don't.

I honestly don't care. There are extremely few instances where that's actually the case. And it still doesn't excuse the fact that the job is evil.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#214
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does when you run it through the right wing filter. And when the FCC is run by the head cheerleader of right wing policies you can bet the filter is going to catch a lot more things.

This isn't right wing. This is just crony capitalism. Find the "right winger" of your choice and ask them what they think about this. Part of the way the cronies keep us in line is to direct our fire at "the other wing", instead of at them. There is approximately nobody in this country going "Hooray, finally our right to be spammed by telemarketers on the phone that I pay for is being respected!"

I'll put Tom Wheeler (or any Democratic appointee) up against Ajit Pai, Michael Powell (or any other Republican appointee) any day when it comes to which side is more pro consumer and which is more pro big monopoly.

> Part of the way the cronies keep us in line is to direct our fire at "the other wing", instead of at them

And part of the way the right wing justifies its atrocities is to claim that "both sides do it", "both sides are the same" or some similar flat out bullshit.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#215
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take an evil job to feed my family if I had no other choice; sometimes people don't.

I honestly don't care. There are extremely few instances where that's actually the case. And it still doesn't excuse the fact that the job is evil.

But it is something to take into consideration when you're punishing someone. You're actively making someone's life worse - you can argue that it's for a good cause, but you can't look away from the collateral damage, even though it's small.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#216
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how phone systems work, but in any other programming scenario, a quick if..else would fix that.

To translate into Internet-engineering terms: assume that you might be having to call out through a proxy server (this is true when you e.g. have to "dial 9" to reach an outside line.) If your own phone is public-routable (i.e. your extension has its own DID, and that's what you're calling), then the routing system outside the device will have no idea that what you'll reach is, in fact, your own device. The origin of…

Perfect explanation, thank you!

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#217
post #194
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "low" in business thinking. Capital is amoral.

People aren't. And unless we have business robots, there are still people involved.

The moral hazard of capital is that people lose their humanity, so to speak, so "people aren't" isn't actually a limit on the behavior of capitalists.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#218
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "low" in business thinking. Capital is amoral.

True - for all businesses in which there is only capital involved and no people [or animals, or environmental concerns, or ...]. Capital may be amoral, but the people using it certainly are not.

People can be amoral. The word wasn't coined only to apply to things that aren't people.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#219
post #113

In a way, this is a huge relief. I never listen to voice mails, so not having to be bothered by my phone ringing for something unimportant saves me a bit of time and anxiety. Now I just have to worry about people I know, phone interviews, and debt collectors (who seem to be harassing me less often via phone these days).

How about just disabling VM?

Then I would get the call no? VM isn't the problem. The problem is the ringing.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#220
post #24

>“responsible marketing.” The only responsible marketing is a nose around your fucking head. If I want your services I will contact you. Got it?

Regardless of how you feel about marketing, or other things you feel strongly about, would you please not post like this here? You've done so countless times in the past (which was a real problem), but fortunately not so much recently. That's a good trend.
Post reply on HN