[LINK] Do-not-call uses list washing

[Adam Todd]

Isn't the simplest thing just to send out a list of numbers with no 
other details.

If someone gets a call, you report it to ADMA, a change to the 
legislation to enable ADMA to obtain A end call records, and presto 
you have a system that works.

$10,000 fine for each number called that appears on the list.

If someone isn't a member of the Marketing Association, then it's not 
an issue anyway, because the Statutory law prevents the "list of 
numbers" being used to make calls and it's an offence to call them.

Simple.

Really.

And the evidence of an offence is recorded at both ends.  It's indisputable.

At 11:36 AM 6/06/2007, Robin Whittle wrote:
>Hi Stewart,
>
>In "Re: [LINK] after the DNCR" you wrote, in part:
>
> > My guess is that the government's release of the no-call list has given
> > Telstra's international associates in the call business, a new defined list
> > of who to call, and that this approach may be a new way to get around the
> > legislation.
>
>The Australian Do Not Call Register differs in one important respect
>from its US counterpart - http://www.donotcall.gov - on which it was
>modelled.
>
>The US DNCR makes available lists of numbers not to be called.
>
>The Australian DNCR does not release the numbers.  It always operates
>via a list washing system.  There are costs in proportion to the number
>of numbers to be tested and which remain unflagged as "do not call".
>
>   https://www.donotcall.gov.au/dncrtelem/info.cfm
>
>While someone could derive a list of numbers not to be called in this
>way, it is a more difficult and expensive thing to do than with the US
>system.  Another benefit is that it is much more difficult to
>aggressively create a day-by-day or week-by-week 'delta' of the DNC
>list.  This would be a powerful tool for criminals and detectives trying
>to find people who have changed their telephone number in a certain
>timeframe, or who have moved to a new locality.
>
>I argued very strongly for the list washing approach to be used
>exclusively for the DNCR. http://www.firstpr.com.au/issues/dnc/
>
>While ADMA used to provide to its members the complete "do not contact"
>list, complete with names, addresses and phone numbers, it also offered
>a list washing service.  This probably meant the industry could hardly
>argue against list washing.
>
>I don't know who else argued for list washing.  Maybe this is a rare
>instance where my privacy advocacy work actually made a difference.
>
>   - Robin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link