The Do Not Call List’s Memory Lapse
posted by Daniel Solove
So you signed up for the federal Do Not Call List and expect not to receive any more of those annoying telemarketing calls ever again. Think again. Signing up expires after 5 years, so if you signed up back when the list first came into existence, you’ll need to sign up all over again soon. It’s the FTC’s way of making us feel like Sisyphus. Lame.
According to the AP:
The cherished dinner hour void of telemarketers could vanish next year for millions of people when phone numbers begin dropping off the national Do Not Call list.
The Federal Trade Commission, which oversees the list, says there is a simple fix. But some lawmakers think it is a hassle to expect people to re-register their phone numbers every five years.
Numbers placed on the registry, begun in June 2003, are valid for five years. For the millions of people who signed onto the list in its early days, their numbers will automatically drop off beginning next June if they do not enroll again.
The article also states:
Since the registry began, the government has filed cases against more than 30 companies, resulting in $8.8 million in civil penalties and $8.6 million in redress to consumers and forfeitures.
Only a few more than 30? That’s it? I strongly doubt compliance with the Do Not Call List has been this good. Smells like weak enforcement to me.
Hat tip: Adler at the VC
September 21, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Posted in: Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Print This Post
Responses (1)
William McGeveran - September 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I love the Do-Not-Call system as much as anyone, but a 5-year sunset seems reasonable to me. People, after all, move around or otherwise change numbers. The number I registered when the list was created, back in a city where I no longer live, need not be listed in perpetuity. On the other hand, if you suddenly start getting calls again after a blissful 5-year reprieve, it’s not hard for you to re-register and get your dinner hour back.
Most of all, if this was part of the compromise to get the thing enacted, it seems like a small price to pay.
Am I missing something?
Leave a Reply