So, robots have no rights to convey messages to humans? Is that so? It might be a wiser option to enhance control over ownership of robots instead.
Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
71–80 of 148 posts
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
White male landowners don't fall for political ads? It's weird how many political ads talk about farming when that group is immune to them!
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So is Wikipedia's definition "Telemarketing is defined as contacting, qualifying, and canvassing prospective customers using telecommunications devices such as telephone, fax, and internet" wrong? Or is it just misleadingly general?
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#74I wonder if, conversely, this could lead to the development of better "bots" where you'd be unable to tell the difference. The motive is certainly there now.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#75I'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.
I've heard that robocalls are illegal in Germany. It would be difficult to pass a law banning them in the United States because the people writing the laws are themselves heavy users of robocalls as a part of their election campaigns.
In Canada political campaigns will rent from allied political parties in the US their robocall army to escape domestic laws. A favorite trick now is to relentlessly phone at annoying hours and impersonate the rival "Stay on the line for an important message from (insert rival politician)" in hopes they anger you enough to not vote for said rival.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#76So, robots have no rights to convey messages to humans? Is that so? It might be a wiser option to enhance control over ownership of robots instead.
Why should robots have any rights at all?
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also didn't account for universal suffrage so didn't have to worry about the idiots who would fall for these.
White male landowners don't fall for political ads? It's weird how many political ads talk about farming when that group is immune to them!
Landowners in general would be a good place to start, people who are smart enough to contribute to society and have a vested interest in the country succeeding.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really wanted to find out you could just ask the phone company, they know the real number/identity of the person calling you, or at the very least a layer deeper than caller ID. It's not like caller ID spoofing makes you anonymous.
I think there are privacy regulations that prevent the phone company from deanonymizing a caller without a warrant. Or at least that’s the excuse I’ve heard cited before.
If you are on the do not call list a warrant SHOULD be easy to get though.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#79HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.
Spoofed Caller ID is a lie, not anonymity.
Here's a proposal: 1) Caller may choose to hide/suppress their Caller ID, 2) mandatory option for phone carriers to allow Callee to completely block calls (no ring, no voicemail) that don't carry Caller ID, 3) When present Caller ID must be accurate.
The above allows anonymity but disallows deceit. It also provides opt-out for people not to receive anonymous calls. (Anonymity does not give you the right to have any given individual listen to you)
We could have had this for ages, as there are no great technical hurdles.
Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election
#80I'm for this, but how is it enforceable?
Companies have teams dedicated to this and are still thwarted. I don't see California Government as leader in technology. But maybe I'm wrong.
I do see them as a leader in overbudget, late, and often failing projects. So while this sounds good, I don't see it being good.