I spoke to Mr. McConomy, Infotel's barrister today. He asked me to remove all infotel postings. Certainly not what the petition asks for. I invited him to have Infotel give me any information showing that the posts are false. If anyone reading this post has any contact with Infotel, please pass along that invitation as well.
All I know is that the identity information may be false. That could mean people are avoiding spammers or are in fear of retaliation from Infotel. How many of you want to put up with what I get? False identity doesn't indicate that the information is false.
Posted by Justene Adamec at April 29, 2004 12:40 PM | TrackBackAvoiding spammers? That's a big yes. Does everyone on the planet sell Viagra?
Avoiding harassment from the goons at the directory scams? Well, I'm not going to make it easy for them. (Oops, defamation, I guess Mr. McConomy will want my name now)!
Just check my sources. I think they speak for themselves. If these 'directory' companies are NOT scams, they've certainly got a lot of people fooled over at the Federal Trade Commission, The Attorney General's office, Phonebusters and the Postal Service.
Posted by: rs at May 3, 2004 07:32 PM (Permalink)A Thought for Mr. McConony
"My point is that these people show up uninvited. Misrepresent themselves to make a sale, and generally make pests of themselves. They waste our time and force us to pay lawyers to write them letters and create hours of worry for the poor workers they attempt to hold hostage -- all to wrangle a payment out of your company for providing nothing of value."
Posted by: rs at May 4, 2004 06:39 AM (Permalink)As noted above (I-A-2), the Commission has decided to feature the statutorily-required
credit cardcredit
card application section more prominently in the summary. However, the Commission
unsecured credit card does not believe the section should be expanded because it currently uses the language prescribed by Congress.
Several
unsecured credit card commenters chase credit card offered revisions of the sentence, required by Section 609(c)(2)(E), reminding consumers in bold letters that they cannot require CRAs to remove information that is accurate and not outdated. The Commission adopted a suggestion by credit card application href="http://credit-card.uni.cc">credit card debt a CRA credit card debt trade association to add a parenthetical cross-reference to clarify that "outdated"
credit card offer means the FCRA's seven year period (ten for bankruptcies), a change that made the bold statement more precise.