Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Fines threat for credit text messages 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Here's a fundamental point : Nobody has a right to call you. Nobody has a right to text you. If someone is doing it and you don't want them to, you should be able to tell them so and they should stop. It's not their right to carry on doing so and you have inconvenience yourself to deal with it.

You may do so, and it's a valid solution, but it's the 'wrong' solution.

Jon


Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:17 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
Here's another fundamental point: Nobody has a right to a mobile phone - they're a luxury that most of mankind (especially the woman in the story) can easily manage without.

Zippy wrote:
In this case, JJ is the only technician who does what he does for his quite small company, but he does it for some very big customers, so yes, if something goes wrong in London at 8pm on a Saturday he will get a notification to his mobile. In addition, he doesn't have a landline, so that's not an option, but even if he did, it would mean that (since he's on call all the time effecively) he could never leave the house!

In which case he's part of a tiny minority of the population that does need to keep their phones on.

However, the vast majority can turn their phone off with absolutely no consequence whatsoever. That people choose to keep it turned on is their choice. They could easily break the chain of causation, which makes being disturbed at night at least partly their fault.

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:46 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
Here's a fundamental point : Nobody has a right to call you. Nobody has a right to text you. If someone is doing it and you don't want them to, you should be able to tell them so and they should stop. It's not their right to carry on doing so and you have inconvenience yourself to deal with it.

You may do so, and it's a valid solution, but it's the 'wrong' solution.

Indeed - these turds need to be stopped. I haven't said anything to the contrary.

However, the fact still remains that if you choose to have your phone on at night, you're choosing to be available to be disturbed.

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:09 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
Here's another fundamental point: Nobody has a right to a mobile phone - they're a luxury that most of mankind (especially the woman in the story) can easily manage without.

True, but irrelevant. Something not being right doesn't give other people the right to abuse it. Having a mobile phone does not mean you've consented to any old idiot trying to contact you at any time of the day or night.

Quote:
However, the vast majority can turn their phone off with absolutely no consequence whatsoever. That people choose to keep it turned on is their choice. They could easily break the chain of causation, which makes being disturbed at night at least partly their fault.

You know, that's about the same logic that says 'if a woman gets raped while wearing revealing clothes, it's partly their fault'. An emotive comparison I'd admit, but see my point above. Having a house doesn't mean you consent to have it burgled or vandalised. Walking down the street doesn't mean you consent to be mugged. Having an online presence doesn't mean you consent to having your identity stolen, or your private data given away by any company you might deal with. Having a mobile phone is indeed a privilege, but there is absolutely no implied consent in having one for anyone at random to contact you anytime at random.

Jon


Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:37 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
rustybucket wrote:
Here's another fundamental point: Nobody has a right to a mobile phone - they're a luxury that most of mankind (especially the woman in the story) can easily manage without.

True, but irrelevant. Something not being right doesn't give other people the right to abuse it. Having a mobile phone does not mean you've consented to any old idiot trying to contact you at any time of the day or night.
Indeed, but choosing to have your mobile turned on means you choose to be contactable by anyone that knows your number.

If you know that someone nefarious has your number and is likely to use it late at night, then by keeping your phone on at night you are choosing to make it easy for the antagonist to inconvenience you. It seems especially stupid if you have no important reason for keeping that phone on.

jonbwfc wrote:
You know, that's about the same logic that says 'if a woman gets raped while wearing revealing clothes, it's partly their fault'. An emotive comparison I'd admit, but see my point above.
It's nothing like the same logic. Rape is a mostly unpredictable, unforeseeable event that the victim is usually powerless to prevent.

In this case, it's much more like a woman who leaves the house dressed as a green & orange stripey rabbit, gets raped at the bottom of the street by a rapist who only rapes women dressed as green & orange stripey rabbits, gets told this by the Police and then the next night chooses to go out again dressed as a green & orange stripey rabbit.

Yes the rapist should be stopped and should bear the full penalty of the law. However, she doesn't need to go out dressed as a green & orange stripey rabbit and can take a very step action to prevent the problem.

Neither time is her fault. However the second time round, she is choosing to make it easy for the antagonist to inconvenience her.

jonbwfc wrote:
Having a house doesn't mean you consent to have it burgled or vandalised.
No it doesn't. Correct.

However, part of any home insurance is the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent burglary i.e. locking the doors and shutting the windows. Deliberately not locking the door means you choose to make it easy for the burglar to commit the crime; you are choosing to make it easy for the antagonist to inconvenience you.

jonbwfc wrote:
Walking down the street doesn't mean you consent to be mugged.
Again correct.

However, choosing to walk through Hulme or Mosside whilst carrying a laptop, an iPhone and noise reduction headphones means you are choosing to not be able to hear the mugger coming. You are choosing to make it easy for the antagonist to inconvenience you.

jonbwfc wrote:
Having an online presence doesn't mean you consent to having your identity stolen, or your private data given away by any company you might deal with.
Again correct.

However unless you take reasonable precautions e.g. updating your browser, installing anti-virus, not including your credit card details in forum posts and e-mails etc., you are choosing to make it easy for the antagonist to inconvenience you.

jonbwfc wrote:
Having a mobile phone is indeed a privilege, but there is absolutely no implied consent in having one for anyone at random to contact you anytime at random.
However there are quite simple steps almost anyone can take to reduce the risk of disturbance or inconvenience.

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:01 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: IoW
Reply with quote
Have you recently taken a job at a call centre, Jim?

That whole thing reads like you're reaching, to justify a weak position.

Until a couple of years ago I was on 24hr call-out and my mobile HAD to be switched on. I didn't work in a particularly high powered/specialised job, nor was I part of the emergency services. Under your reasoning, if was still in that job, I'd just have to grin and bear it when receiving spam texts at 2am.

_________________
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!


Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:51 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
For many people, their mobile is their only form of contact. Texting someone at stupid o'clock is exactly the same as banging on their front door. Would you not be upset if I banged on your front door uninvited 4 times every day at various hours?

Of course it's your own fault for having a front door. A front door is a privilege many people can't afford - and that's seriously true. Millions of people are homeless or living in accommodation with no kind of privacy.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:09 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Zippy wrote:
I don't see how this is any different to the cold-callers who do call landlines soliciting business, I think if you don't want to be bothered by this stuff, then you shouldn't have to be.

+1

I don't do anything urgent via text message. However, my degree was in Trading Standards (who enforce this sort of thing), so I know only too well exactly what sort of affect this kind of badgering can have on someone, especially a vulnerable person. What starts off as an annoyance can quickly become distressing for the recipient and it's a highly unethical way to be carrying on business.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:32 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:36 pm
Posts: 5161
Location: /dev/tty0
Reply with quote
I don't have a phone plugged into my landline as 12 months after I move in I'll be moving out.

My mobile is for all sorts of contact, and although turned to silent, still vibrates and flashes at me during the night.

Work could also call me 24/7 if the other guy on call can't make the call out (illness, etc.).

The few spam texts I've had have been annoying, but I'd rather suffer them than find something awful had happened to a family member over voicemail.


Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:51 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
Spreadie wrote:
Under your reasoning, if was still in that job, I'd just have to grin and bear it when receiving spam texts at 2am.

No.

Under my reasoning, you now don't have to.

JJW009 wrote:
For many people, their mobile is their only form of contact.

For the vast majority, that's just not true.

I am talking about the majority.

JJW009 wrote:
Texting someone at stupid o'clock is exactly the same as banging on their front door.

It's nothing like the same.

One cannot turn a front door to silent or leave it downstairs on the kitchen counter..

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:45 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
What starts off as an annoyance can quickly become distressing for the recipient and it's a highly unethical way to be carrying on business.

Indeed - I've been on the receiving end.

And until I could sort it out, I either turned my phone off at night or, if I needed to contactable, turned the SMS volume down. Either way I wasn't disturbed at night, slept soundly and could better deal with things in the morning.

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
RB, you are the only person who has posted anything in this thread that suggest these kind of unsolicited communications are the receiver's problem to deal with, rather than something the sender should be prohibited from doing. Has it occurred to you that, you know, everyone else might just be right on this one?


Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:53 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
JJW009 wrote:
For many people, their mobile is their only form of contact.

For the vast majority, that's just not true.

For the majority of wealthy people, what you say is true. It's incredibly unchristian to deny the existence of the majority of the world population who are not so fortunate.

Image

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8355504.stm

Outside of Europe, the figures are very much higher. They've also increased since that article. I'm sure you could find the facts if you cared.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:21 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
RB, you are the only person who has posted anything in this thread that suggest these kind of unsolicited communications are the receiver's problem to deal with, rather than something the sender should be prohibited from doing.

I have not suggested anything of the sort.

I have merely suggested that the woman in the report is not nearly as helpless as is being made out. She has things she can do while she waits for the authorities to catch up.

jonbwfc wrote:
Has it occurred to you that, you know, everyone else might just be right on this one?

Ah! Argumentum ad populum. I was wondering when that would turn up.

And to my recollection, it has never been valid.

_________________
Jim

Image


Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:25 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
RB, you are the only person who has posted anything in this thread that suggest these kind of unsolicited communications are the receiver's problem to deal with, rather than something the sender should be prohibited from doing.

I have not suggested anything of the sort.

It very much sounded like you were suggesting it was her problem, or simply dismissing it as not being a problem at all.

We're not talking about email spam or bumf through the letter box, it's far more intrusive and I maintain that it's equivalent to banging on someone's door. Not that bad once or twice, but 28 times per week, 120 times a month, over 1000 times a year it can really grind you down.

I've had to change my land line number in the past for a similar reason - I was getting texts and calls several times a day, to the point where my phone was literally full of this crap if I was away for a couple of days. You simply can't change your number frequently, and for many people as they have testified here unplugging is just not an option and wouldn't make the problem go away anyway.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:42 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.