SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Supreme Court's pro-Facebook ruling could unleash "flood" of robocalls:
A Supreme Court ruling today in favor of Facebook limits the reach of a 1991 US law that bans certain kinds of robocalls and texts. The court found that the anti-robocall law only applies to systems that have the ability to generate random or sequential phone numbers. Systems that lack that capability are thus not considered autodialers under the law, even if they can store numbers and send calls and texts automatically.
Advocates say the ruling will make it harder to block automated calls and texts, potentially unleashing a "flood" of new robocalls.
[...] "Companies will use autodialers that are not covered by the Supreme Court's narrow definition to flood our cellphones with even more unwanted robocalls and automated texts," said Margot Saunders, the group's senior counsel. The court ruling "interpreted the statute's definition of autodialer so narrowly that it applies to few or none of the autodialers in use today," the NCLC also said.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by rigrig on Friday April 02 2021, @11:16AM (1 child)
Facebook wasn't "working it's way through a database", it was specifically targeting this number with warning messages: it somehow ended up in their database as connected with an account he never created himself, and someone was logging into that account from an "untrusted" device.
There might (or ought to be one) be a law against storing/using his phone number when he didn't made an account, but I'd agree with the SC that this isn't robocalling.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 04 2021, @01:42AM
He should have just asked for a password reset, set the account as viewable by friends only, and set goatse etc, as family pictures.