WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- The Center for Democracy and Technology said in a recent report that a federal law should allow all consumers to block their phone numbers from unwanted telemarketers.
The think tank is endorsing a Federal Trade Commission proposal that would allow consumers to put their names on a national "Do Not Call" registry page that would prohibit companies from soliciting their products to them over the telephone.
This issue has become more important to consumers with the advent of the rampant sharing of Internet lists among telemarketers. How much privacy Internet consumers should have -- in other words, should their marketing information be sold by the Internet companies they do business with -- is being debated in Congress.
But the emphasis on privacy "fell off the radar screen after Sept. 11 and with the passage of President Bush's Patriot Act in November, which gives the government broad authority to get information on people," said Robert Litan, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.
The new FTC proposal would amend the agency's Telemarketing Sales Rule that limits the times that telemarketing calls can be made to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., and prohibits telemarketers from lying or misrepresenting their products.
Twelve states already have "do not call" registry lists, with varying degrees of mandatory compliance. The Direct Marketing Association has a "do not call" list that isn't widely publicized, and the list only applies to DMA members. And some marketers have their own "do not call" lists, but there is no one place where consumers can go to ask to be taken off all calling lists, says the CDT.
"We feel strongly that individuals should be able to have a choice -- as many choices as possible -- whether to receive telemarketing calls at all, at certain times during the day, or during certain days of the week," said Ari Schwartz, CDT's associate director.
The FTC is collecting public comments on the choices consumers might have if a national "Do Not Call" registry existed. The FTC's questionnaire includes such questions as:
* How long should telephone numbers remain on the list?
* Should the registry be an "all or nothing" option, or should it allow consumers to specify the days or time of day that they are willing to accept telemarketing calls?
* How will the list affect those companies with which a consumer or donor already has a relationship?
Litan says that consumers are ripe for this national law, that Americans are universally fed up with unsolicited telemarketing, and that this is a bipartisan issue.
"Protection from telemarketing is strongly supported by the American public," Litan said. "I almost think this ranks up there with motherhood and apple pie. I think it's significant that it is a Bush agency that is proposing this. The FTC has strong deregulation credentials, yet it is proposing a new rule to protect privacy."
"Studies show that Americans' first concern with privacy is telemarketing," Schwartz said.
Others are less enthusiastic about the new proposal, thinking that a national "Do Not Call" registry isn't needed, or that one is needed, but that this proposal may not do enough.
Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington thinks consumers already are sufficiently protected from telemarketers through other avenues.
"This looks like it is part of the broader FTC effort to go after unsolicited sales pitches, unsolicited emails, etc. It is the right approach for emails, but there already are solutions for unsolicited phone calls, there's no need for a national registry," Crews said. "We have caller ID, DMA has a lot of members on its list ... and not every telemarketing call is unwelcome. This will create a lot of hassles for smaller companies and reputable telemarketers who aren't doing the calling. Also, it doesn't seem to be the role of the FTC to regulate ordinary commerce. They should go after fraud."
Chris Hoofnagle, legislative council for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is in favor of the FTC proposal, saying that such lists have worked well for the states, but warns of major pitfalls.
"The proposal will certainly pass, and there probably won't be many changes to it, but the question will be the details," Hoofnagle said. "Who can enroll? Will it have to be the telecommunications subscriber? How much authentication will be needed to enroll? Will enrollment require a written letter?" said Hoofnagle. (The DMA charges $5 to 'opt out' of calls over the Internet, and otherwise only accepts 'opt out' letters.)
"One of the largest downfalls of the proposal is that the telecom sales rule won't apply to common carriers like airlines and telephone companies because the FTC doesn't have the authority to regulate those entities," he said. There is an implication that the FTC will work with the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates phone companies, on this proposal, but that isn't a given. States' rules are better than this proposal, in a way, because they have the authority to apply their opt out registry rules to all telemarketers.
"Still, 'do not call' lists work, they cut down on telemarketing greatly," Hoofnagle said. "Also, the TSR changes would prohibit the use of pre-acquired account information -- where a telemarketer can automatically deduct money from a consumer's bank account without having to get the account information from the customer, since he's already bought that information from someone else."
