"A person using a bot shall not be liable under this section if the person discloses that it is a bot."
The bill doesn't dictate how that disclosure should take place. Would using a robot emoji suffice?
Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
61–70 of 148 posts
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.
"most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity" I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business. They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
You should be able to call politicians or organizations which criticise authorities, and they should set up anonymous means of doing so (perhaps required by law). You shouldn't be able to call someone's Grandma, impersonate her son, and scam her out of her retirement.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#63I like the idea of this, but I wonder if it will have much impact on the worst offenders. The most frequent and annoying calls are almost always using spoofed numbers and many times originating from outside the country, like India. Is there any way that this law could be enforced... 1)on calls originating outside the state or country? 2) on calls over spoofed numbers?
This bill isn’t limited to phone calls. It also applies to any bot on any social media site that receives more than 10mm visitors per month that exists to “incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction” . In other words, a Facebook Messenger bot answering pre-sale questions is violating this law unless it has a massive disclosure about it being a bot. At first glance it also appears…
> At first glance it also appears that this law would make chats in which a bot handles most but not all of the interaction illegal.
Only illegal if it isn't disclosed that it's a bot ("A person using a bot shall not be liable under this section if the person discloses that it is a bot."), and the bill doesn't dictate the form of that disclosure, only that it must be "clear, conspicuous, and reasonably designed to inform persons with whom the bot communicates or interacts that it is a bot".
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#64I'm all for this...but can we just ban telemarketing entirely? Why is that even allowed? I've always thought that the law should be written such that telemarketing is legal, but if you engage in it, it is no longer illegal to murder you. You can do it, but you lose your murder protection.
While you're at it, ban Spam endorsed by the federal government (USPS)... junk mailers even get rebates to fill up your mailbox.
While they are at it, also get rid of the spam car and debt consolidation loan mailers. If you opt-out, you also don't get mailers from AmEx on their newest metallic card, which I might want. But I don't need a loan from some unknown institution at near credit-card rates.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity" I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business. They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
You should be able to call politicians or organizations which criticise authorities, and they should set up anonymous means of doing so (perhaps required by law). You shouldn't be able to call someone's Grandma, impersonate her son, and scam her out of her retirement.
I think the problem is an "anonymous tip line" just for criticizing or whistle blowing purposes is too limited in scope. There are plenty of other reasons people need anonymity where you can't setup a dedicated, anonymous system. You would also be at the mercy of those who setup the system, because you'd be calling it with your "real ID" telephone line. If you setup a general system that allows anonymity on-demand, it will be abused.
I'm not advocating for or against this, just trying to work out the ethical model where citizens are protected, but criminals can be identified and prosecuted. I don't have the answer ;)
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are illegal in the UK too, but the law doesn't stop calls coming in from abroad or from marketing companies routing through throwaway UK SIP providers. I'd just like to see phone companies made to have a free option where customers can turn off all calls from unidentifiable/withheld numbers. That would be easy to implement and stop a lot of the problem.
I never answer a call if the number is not saved on my phone. If it's truly important leave a voicemail, I will get back to you if I have to.
Yeah I recently permanently set my phone to Do Not Disturb, which blocks all calls from people not in my favorites. It’s been great
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.
You're right, and my argument is not fully worked out. I had the thought yesterday and didn't post - I just find it odd that we're demanding "real ID" for telephone calls, but recoil in horror when proposals are made to tie "real ID" to IP addresses to online activity. I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of t…
I think part of the problem is that caller ID claims to provide clear identification. People are conditioned to believe caller ID and don't realize it can be easily spoofed. This feeds into the scam because people are willingly more gullible.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#68I like the idea of this, but I wonder if it will have much impact on the worst offenders. The most frequent and annoying calls are almost always using spoofed numbers and many times originating from outside the country, like India. Is there any way that this law could be enforced... 1)on calls originating outside the state or country? 2) on calls over spoofed numbers?
This bill isn’t limited to phone calls. It also applies to any bot on any social media site that receives more than 10mm visitors per month that exists to “incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction” . In other words, a Facebook Messenger bot answering pre-sale questions is violating this law unless it has a massive disclosure about it being a bot. At first glance it also appears…
Upvoting is not an expression of support for the content, it's a "I think this article should be seen by more people" signal.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#69If people are so easily swayed then perhaps they are just idiots? There are some cold & hard facts advocates of democracy need to look at. These problems can't be legislatively swept under the rug.
The people who developed democracy never accounted for the weapons grade marketing and persuasion we are capable of today.
They also didn't account for universal suffrage so didn't have to worry about the idiots who would fall for these.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#70The title here says the bill is about telemarketing, but the bill is pretty short and I didn't see anything about telemarketing. This is just about limiting bots on "any Internet Web site, Web application, or digital application"
Sorry, I am not a native English speaker. I made the title by rewriting this sentence to fit into 80 characters limit: "This bill would, with certain exceptions, make it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purpose of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of…
Telemarketing is specifically about marketing via phone calls. The phrase you want is "online marketing", although that is a bit longer. Almost all of the discussion in the comments thread here is about phone calls.