Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivl | Hacker News Reader

That does not sound too broad. I don't think anyone wants these unsolicited marketing calls. And people definitely don't want the 'free vacation in the Bahamas' spam calls. I can hardly tell the two apart. What's odd is it seems there are more robocalls today than there were 5-10 years ago.

View on HN

Too broad meaning if I find your lost dog, I can't technically call the number on the dog tag because I don't have consent.

Sure you do. Putting your phone number on the collar is implicit consent (request even!) to be called if the dog is found.

The law is not applied by dumb machines. No-one is getting fined in the scenario you mentioned, just like no-one is being fined for calling a pizza place because they found their number on a menu. Behavior can be used to infer consent.

That tag is written consent right there. The number isn't put there for decoration.

That would never actually happen. What did actually happen is now I get at least half a dozen robocalls per day. It has rendered my phone useless.

Except who would report that person? There has to be some sort of intent there too plus the complaint.

Sounds like you fell for fearmongering.

Doesn't 'fell for' imply they aren't posting in bad faith? Seriously, what person over the age of 15 actually thinks calling a number on a dog collar is gonna get them prosecuted by the big bad FCC? That's ludicrous even by the standards of the kind of delusions Republicans have normally.

I'm trying to stick with the HN guideline of reading people charitably, unless they make false claims as a habit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com