Phone for Rent

Is there anyone out there who actually enjoys getting calls from telephone solicitors, or computers, or advertisers …. or automated calls from political campaigns? OK, the calls from Cheryl Crow and Lance Armstrong were kind of amusing – the first time.

Does anyone actually respond to these calls? Buy the product? Apply for the mortgage? Well – someone must, or they would have stopped making them by now. To those folks I say – stop that! It’s like giving-in to a whining child. It only encourages them to continue or even escalate. I can speak from personal experience here —- every time I give-in to my whining children I regret it… and pay for it.

Unfortunately, since we can’t seem to get everyone to play from the same telephone solicitor rearing handbook, we have been forced to turn to legislation and no call lists and rules to try to halt these annoying behaviors without interfering with the rights of free speech. I’m not sure why we have to give Canadians freedom of speech (lots of telephone solicitors are based in Canada) — though I’d be tempted to reconsider my no tolerance policy for torture of foreign nationals in this case. But I digress.

Using the “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” theory of government — the folks in Annapolis are going to try to stop these annoying phone calls through the “no call list” by removing the exemption for political users. This might be considered “self-policing” but if it works, I’d be happy – and surprised.

Legislation would ban automated political calls

Proposed bills would end candidates’ exemption from no-call registry rules

By Kristen Wyatt

Sun Reporter

Originally published February 22, 2007, 4:03 PM EST

ANNAPOLIS // Annoyed by pre-recorded phone calls from political candidates? Maryland lawmakers have heard the complaints, and now they’re considering getting rid of a political exemption from the do-not-call registry.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I have a different approach based on a fundamentally capitalist argument.

My phone is my tool — my personal property. I pay for it. I pay for its’ acquisition, its’ maintenance, its’ connection, its’ service. It is a device and a service I purchase and pay for for MY convenience. (this is the same argument I use for my daughter’s cell phone – which I assert when I want her to turn it off and not answer it during dinner – but again, I digress).

I would like to develop a device which charges people who use my tool without my permission or agreement.

We have come close with the devices and services which block “private numbers” from ringing through — (which strikes me as another annoying pay for protection scheme — I pay the phone company for a service for my convenience, then they allow/facilitate the unauthorized and annoying use of my tool by telemarketers, then offer to protect me from these people for a fee)—- but the telemarketers figured out ways around that, and people with very real privacy concerns are penalized.

I heard about a device which would answer your phone and if it detected a computer on the line would send out a tone which would disable the computer — I think it was wishful thinking, but I want one.

It is my proposal that we stop thinking about our personal tools – our telephones – as some kind of community property that unauthorized folks have unlimited rights to use without compensation to the owner.

I would like a device attached to my phone which could be programmed to automatically allow pre-approved numbers through…. and would issue a warning to others —- “there is a $5 per connection charge for ringing this number which can only be waived by the owner of this number…. do you wish to proceed with connection?” Then – when I answer, I have the ability to either process the charge or not. If “not”, I may add that new number to my approved database. If “process the charge” – I’ll just let them keep calling and collect my $5 — or put them on the permanent do not ring list.

Of course, the telephone company would want a cut of the action — they are accomplices in the whole “scheme” of things, after all.

Unfortunately, the problem with this device is that once it becomes a success, it will become obsolete almost immediately. Once the privilege of being annoying begins to carry a price tag, it will stop.

Maybe I should concentrate on the device that enables us to zap the computer – that would be more satisfying. Investors welcome.

Cindy Vailancourt

Law Enforcement – It Takes A Village

Ok, “it takes a village” is on my list of tired and tiresome slogans – but in this case it does evoke the image I am looking for, particularly in the context of HoCo and Columbia.

We may not be plagued by the scope of the crime problem in our neighboring metropoli, but our police face some of the same frustrations in their efforts to keep the streets safe for all of us — scared and reluctant witnesses.

The police will tell you that for most of the crimes they investigate, there are plenty of folks who know the who and why answers – they just won’t share. Unlike the “feds” most local jurisdictions do not have the funding or the programs in place to provide adequate witness protection.

Our own Congressman Cummings has “reintroduced” legislation to help state and local prosecutors (and police) provide a measure of protection for witnesses to homicides or other major violent crimes – which should result in better cooperation and incentives for community members to come forward with information.

Cummings Reintroduces the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007”

Congressman Cummings has reintroduced the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, (H.R. 933)” which would expand state and local witness protection programs. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has introduced a companion bill, S. 79.

The bill would establish a short-term State Witness Protection Program within the U.S. Marshals Service to provide protection for witnesses in state and local trials involving homicide or other major violent crimes. The legislation would also authorize the U.S. Attorney General to make grants to eligible prosecutor’s offices for the purpose of providing short term protection to witnesses in trials involving homicide or other serious violent felonies.

….State and local prosecutors often must choose between funding investigations or funding costly, but necessary witness protection programs. This often leads to some jurisdictions providing no witness protection at all.

“No one wins when law enforcement officials are forced to choose between funding investigations and funding witness protection programs,” Congressman Cummings said, “That is why I have reintroduced the “Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.’” (from Cummings E-Newsletter).

Witness intimidation, the impediments to investigation and enforcement, and the cost to local jurisdictions may not be a significant problem in HoCo right now (unless you have been a victim of an unsolved or unpunished crime – then it probably seems significant). It may also be true that this legislation may have been more motivated by concerns about other counties, but I don’t care. HoCo should be the recipient of its’ benefits. Having tools in place before a crisis is a much better plan than “management by crisis”.

Now, if you are interested in giving law enforcement a much needed tool for its’ toolbelt – write to your other elected officials and urge support for this legislation.

Cindy Vaillancourt