Like Garbo, Americans want to be left alone

McPaper (USA Today) ^ | October 15, 2003 | Bruce Horovitz

[buzzyboop]

Dave Barry is a very funny man. Except when he gets junk phone calls. Then, the syndicated columnist becomes a very angry man. So angry, in fact, that he has twice published the phone number of a powerful telemarketing lobby, the American Teleservices Association, in his weekly humor column. His advice to readers: "Tell them what you think."

Did they ever. So many angry calls came in after that the ATA shut down the number. Last Sunday, he gave out their new one.

It's no wonder the group was bombarded. Consumers are fed up with the increasingly audacious gang of unwanted outsiders who pester them via their phones, e-mail, fax machines and mailboxes. It's a war, of sorts, and the battleground has become the home.

"Home used to be a place for quiet and solace," says Renee White Fraser, a Los Angeles advertising psychologist. But these days, she says, "It's a target."

Consumers, stung by too many direct marketing arrows, are slamming the front door...

[buzzyboop]

USA Today, USEless tomorrow.. masters of the obvious.

[Support Free Republic]

Thank you very much, thank you very much!
It isn't every day, good fortune comes me way
I never thought the future would be fun for me!
And if I had a bugle, I would blow it to add a sort
o' how's your father's touch.
But since I left me bugle at home, I simply have to say
Thank you very, very, very much! Thank you very, very, very much!

[Old Sarge]

I think this is a MASTERFUL tactic! I don't usually like Dave Barry, but THIS is a good thing!

[T Ruth]

Spam and telemarketing have become big problems.

To screen out telemarketers, caller ID is indispensible.

Someone on FR suggested MailWasher against spam; and I have been using it for several months with good results.

Generally, I oppose govermental restrictions on communications. But the spam business is one where I would make an exception. It is a serious problem when spammers cost internet users collectively many billions of dollars in wasted capacity and lost time, and the collective profit to the spammers is only in the tens of millions.

In economic terms, there is a serious externality (external diseconomy) at work here. To cure this, legislation is appropriate. However, creating enforceable legislation has not been easy, especially because the internet ignores jurisdictional boundaries. Maybe there could be a technological fix. One way or another, a material cost should be imposed on the sending of spam.

[Mackey]

On an average day I will receive 50 pieces of spam at my work address. On bad days it runs over 100.

I sometimes find myself wishing I could smash the fingers of the creeps that keep flooding my mailbox. With a ball peen hammer. One bone at a time.

[gcruse]

Someone on FR suggested MailWasher against spam; and I have been using it for several months with good results.

Same here, probably from the same thread.  However, my spam load hasn't dropped appreciably.
Many of the spam emails I get are not from the address they purport to be, so the bounceback has no
effect whatsoever.  It doesn't seem worth the effort.  At least I can delete stuff based on the subject
line without having to download the body.  Otherwise, mailwash is of dubious value, I find.