On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:37:25 -0800, "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net"
<kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Why have this law when there is no one to enforce it ?
>I have a un-listed number, on the do not call list, and get calls all
>the time. Voice and fax calls. Faxes happen at early am hours. I called
>SBC about it. They told me there is no way to get them to stop. All they
>can do is change my number. Nice law.
>
>Just another law that someone made millions on.

I think the law, while not perfect, is working pretty well. I have a
primary and two secondary numbers, all unlisted. I maybe get 1 or 2
questionable calls per year total through all three numbers. Plus,
there's a wide variety of calls the law was never intended to address.
The hangups and fax calls number among them. That's why I asked the
OP (twice) what his state law says about harassment.

>What about the spam law ? Same thing. Give us your email address. We
>will make a data base of all these email address and then compile them
>onto mega amounts of media. You then pay for this of course. But you
>still get spam.

The spam law is useless because most of the spam these days is
generated outside the US, and thus, outside the jurisdiction of US
courts. I knew when it passed it was an exercise in futility.

>Or the best one yet. You get spam, At the bottom it tells you that if
>you want off the list reply to the listed email below. Remove@xyz.com
>They then have your good email address that they sell as a good working
>email address.

It's been widely known for years that the "remove me" links should
*never* be used.