California Judge In Charge Of Enforcing Laws Against Robocalls, Using Robocalls Herself

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Wed, Jun 9th 2010 7:39am — Mike Masnick

Thomas Hawk writes "Victoria Kolakowski, a current sitting law judge at the California PUC, is running for Alameda Superior Court judge in California. As part of her campaign she is robodialing people in California with a pre-recorded message. The only problem is that in Califorina robodials are actually illegal unless first introduced by a non-recorded natural person who gains consent to play the call. Ironically, the very agency set up to protect our privacy and enforce this law, the California PUC, is the very agency where Kolakowski works today. Kolakowski originally apologized for the calls but then later deleted messages on her Facebook account from people objecting to her use of these calls. Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'techincally" she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: robocalls, victoria kolakowski

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Andrew F (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 7:48am

Unfortunately, I think she's won her election last night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 7:51am

George Orwell strikes again!
You see? The doublespeak is strong with this one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 7:56am

But...but
But I AM the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zaven (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: But...but
  I only have one response
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:06am

Somehow I put my cell number on my vote by mail registration. Every single election I get all kinds of out-of-state robocalls about the up coming election. The law has a major loophole. I also get calls from real humans from inside california, I see caller id with numbers like 510-000-0000. Both kinds of calls are equally annoying, not sure why the law specifically singles out robocalls as the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  I don't recall where I heard this, but aren't robocalls to cell phones illegal for any purpose? I think the logic is similar to spamming a fax machine, since the receiver of the call incurs an actual monetary cost -- as opposed to annoyance and the time cost to delete a spam e-mail, for example -- they shouldn't be allowed to call your cell phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    no,political exception
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hulser (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      no,political exception
      
      I know there's a political exception for the Do Not Call list, but I was still under the impression that it was illegal to make unsolicited calls to a cell phone. It's bad enough when you have to deal with unsolicited calls on your home line -- if you still have one, that is -- but it's even worse when the call uses your monthly cell phone minutes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  "Both kinds of calls are equally annoying, not sure why the law specifically singles out robocalls as the problem."
  
  I think the bigger question is what kind of voting public do we have in America that robocalls and cold calls in any way effect voting practices?
  
  Call: "Hi, this is Dark Helmet, currently running for the Illinois Senate seat that your former governor tried to sell to the highest bidder. I like cans of Perri-Air, long walks on the beach with Druish princesses, playing with my dolls, and laser beaming soldiers testicles. I am currently campaigning on the "stop the raporists, think of the children, liberal-conservative-communist style anarchy method for ensuring you have fresh air and a galaxy free of the Planet of the Apes (particularly the Mark Wahlberg version, who the fuck thought THAT was a good idea?). Please vote for me at election time."
  
  Citizen: "Okay."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would vote for that.
    
    Seriously though, the problem is that the politician whose name is remembered is the one that gets the vote. It doesn't matter why unless it is particularly unsavory.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Seriously though, the problem is that the politician whose name is remembered is the one that gets the vote."
      
      Fair enough. But I have a better method for making sure my name gets remembered than robocalls. The day I announce my candidacy for any office would be exactly one day after the paperwork came through on the legal change of my name to Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - z, 9 Jun 2010 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        o man, and i was ready to vote for you after your first post...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sneeje (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And your profile name hasn't been changed because...
        
        I mean Dark Helmet has history, but Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese has well, Awesomeballs and McVagina Cheese.
        
        Regarding your first post, I'm with you. The moment I can tell that a robocall is starting or about to start, I either press delete on my voicemail or make them eat dialtone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It might be worth it just to read an article that starts with, "Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese alerts us to..."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese, 9 Jun 2010 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try it and I'll sue... mine!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2010 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Seriously though, the problem is that the politician whose name is remembered is the one that gets the vote. It doesn't matter why unless it is particularly unsavory."
      
      Isn't that how George W. Bush got elected? People just saw "George Bush" and thought he was running again. Sheeple. Gotta love em.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      its the politician with the most charisma that wins. ability, knowledge and dedication to public service be damned these days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:09am

gotcha politics. such a wonderful, classy thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 9 Jun 2010 @ 8:43am

um...fired?
Shouldn't she get fired just because of how dumb this is? I know any PR is good PR but you would hope people would know enough about the issues to just elect someone they don't know. Granted I guess people don't know her well enough, just recognize the name...sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 9:06am

Oh? So if I re-direct any web activity through a proxy server - that makes it legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  It's about jurisdiction. How can a California court tell people in Colorado what's legal and illegal? The robocallers are calling from Colorado, robocalling is legal in Colorado, California has no jurisdiction to do anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah, but they're crossing state lines using an electronic communications line while misleading the recipient into thinking they are from within the state. This just narrowly misses the definition of wire fraud.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt1981m (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:32pm

hey dark helmet...wasnt it President Skroob who had the perri-air?...and dont forget to remind him to change the code on his luggage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re:
  Like President Skroob is the Emperor of Perri-Air. I get that stuff by the case down at Spaceballs: The Overpriced Corner Market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, but it's gained a lot of popularity, thanks to some little twerp's "moichandizing, moichandizing"....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt1981m (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:35pm

i too usually just delete the message or hang up like Sneeje, but the robocalls that really piss me off are the ones that redial you immediately if you hang up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sneeje (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re:
  That's never happened to me. I had no idea that was possible. That would generate some serious fury.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt1981m (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:59pm

technically since someone is in colorado calling a california number, dont they have to abide by california laws regarding robocalls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt1981m (profile), 9 Jun 2010 @ 1:02pm

spaceballs the flame thrower...the kids love this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]