[AutoJC]

This Judge can go to hell for his breach of our right to privacy

[zigzag]

The judge didn't "breach our right to privacy," he held that the FTC in particular does not have the legal authority to establish the registry (he notes that the FCC does have the authority, but that the FCC hasn't acted on it). In other words, he didn't say that he opposes the registry, only that it was implemented by the wrong agency, without express authority from Congress. That's his job - to interpret ambiguous legislation. All Congress has to do is clarify the legislation.

I'm not even saying that the judge's interpretation of the law is correct, only that you might be misconstruing his intent. As someone who appears to vehemently oppose governmental overreaching, you might even applaud the judge's effort to delineate a federal agency's authority.

I suspect that if the judge had an underlying motive, it was to avoid having to address the First Amendment issue. By ruling that the FTC's implementation of the registry was ultra vires, he didn't have to reach the First Amendment questions and could leave them to the higher courts. I expect that even if Congress passes immediate legislation to clarify the FTC's authority, the case will go to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

I'm disappointed to hear the news, but I don't necessarily blame the judge.

[finboy]

Well, now we don't NEED the FTC, technically, since those 50.6M who called the do-not-call list got their names on the books officially. And now that their preferences are KNOWN, it will only take a handful to start a class action suit to make the FTC irrelevant. Congress will fix it before then, most likely.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
Well, now we don't NEED the FTC, technically, since those 50.6M who called the do-not-call list got their names on the books officially. And now that their preferences are KNOWN, it will only take a handful to start a class action suit to make the FTC irrelevant. Congress will fix it before then, most likely.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you mean a class-action suit against the telemarketers?

[chabig]

While privacy is something nice to have, and we value it, it is not a "right" in the constitution.

Chris

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by chabig:
While privacy is something nice to have, and we value it, it is not a "right" in the constitution.

Chris

I disagree. You have a right to own property.

[Zimphire]

If people solicit unwanted faxes to you without permission, you can fine them.

It should be the same thing with email and mail.

You are paying for a service. They are using the service you are paying for to send you unwanted information. They are basically making you pay for their spam.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If people solicit unwanted faxes to you without permission, you can fine them.

It should be the same thing with email and mail.

You are paying for a service. They are using the service you are paying for to send you unwanted information. They are basically making you pay for their spam.