🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.92Nov12000933@nic.gac.edu>  writes:
> This isn't to say that such legislation is highly prevalent.  All
> I know is that this is how things work in Minnesota.  Even then,
> there _may_ be loopholes for certain situations.  For instance, in
> your situation you could have people give you written permission
> to have the computer call them and leave messages, which means that
> you've removed the major complaint about such systems (the harrassment
> sort of concerns).  But, the lucrative bucks would be in selling
> such systems to telemarketers, who'd be paying thousands of dollars
> for them whereas I suspect your underfunded group will not be
> willing to pay.  And the package _is_ almost exactly the same
> (precisely, anything that does what you want done could also be
> used for automated telemarketing stuff).

Maybe this isn't the right place to discuss this. If so, please feel free  
to tell me the correct place to move this discussion.

You get to the heart of the issues Scott. (1) This technology should not  
be used to deliver UNSOLICITED messages (although we allow this in the US  
Mail which I don't like either). (2) Developers want to make money for  
their efforts. (3) Once such a system is developed, it will be equally  
useful to commercial and noncommercial concerns.

Certainly this technology has a beneficial use in the private non-profit  
sector where developer profits probably would be slimmer. But think of the  
social benefits (eg. inexpensive grassroots democracy).

Written permission? That sounds like a lot of beauracracy. Why not allow  
people to give consent over the phone-in message line? They could  
subscribe by leaving their phone number (and optionally their name and  
address). This subscription phone message could then be stored in an  
archive. In the rare instance that legal problems arose (eg. someone was  
impersonated) wouldn't voice pattern analysis be possible? Of course  
unsubscribing may be the problem. An unscrupulous organization could claim  
they never received the unscribe message. Perhaps a confirming number  
could be returned to the caller? If the preceeding is a good idea, I'll  
add it to my design specs list (which I notice Darcy BROCKBANK has  
responded to as a modifier to his current development).

Anyway wouldn't this subscription system also work for commercial  
organizations? Some people may not mind receiving messages from certain  
commercial organizations and thus be willing to subscribe to their  
announcements.

I hate to see this obvious NextStep application buried by overly severe  
privacy concerns. I'm the most fanatical privacy person you're likely to  
meet, but I'd rather accept reasonable protections than prevent the  
development of new potentially useful technology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Colello
Carnegie Institution, Department of Plant Biology
Stanford University
gcolello@biosphere.stanford.edu