That's just PBX routing, and it's very different from what robocallers are doing. One common (and highly abusive) trick, particularly from sleazy debt collectors, is to spoof their caller ID records to make it look like the call is coming from a relative so the person will see it as a trusted number and be sure to answer. That's what spoofing is about. There is no legitimate use for it, and it really ought to be illegal.
Law Enforcement Domestic Abuse Shelters Legitimate Call Centers
Why would these services have a legitimate reason for making their caller ID appear to be coming from somewhere else? I can see how they would have a legitimate reason, in certain circumstances, for not displaying any caller ID, (ie. anonymous calling, which I did say has legitimate uses,) but spoofing is a completely different thing.
Most robocallers make heavy use of number spoofing technology, meaning that fighting robocalling will always be a massive game of Whac-a-Mole no matter what.
You can make it a much less massive game by banning it. Calling anonymously is one thing, but pretending to have a different number than the number you have is something that I can't think of any legitimate use for whatsoever. Can you?
Due to several factors, including fair use and the possibility of licensing, it's not possible to unilaterally declare file sharing to be "trafficking in illegal goods" with any accuracy. This is why courts and Due Process exist, and why we've long held in this country that you can't punish someone on accusation alone, and they're innocent until proven guilty.
How is pre-emptively treating them identically to a guilty verdict without actually going through Due Process not "censoring"?
When a weed grows in your garden, there are two ways to deal with it. You can cut it off above ground, which is easy, but it keeps growing back, and you have to keep cutting it down again and again and again. Or you can do a little bit of hard work and actually pull it out by the root. Only then is it truly gone.
The whole regime of extrajudicial copyright "enforcement" (censorship) that makes a mockery of legal doctrines we hold sacred such as the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process has a root: the DMCA. As long as we don't pull it up, these bad ideas will keep springing up again and again no matter how many times we cut them down.
It's the basis of our system of capitalism for companies to ... try to corner the market and monopolize it
...which is why it has always needed to be regulated. It's interesting the stuff you find when you actually read what Adam Smith had to say on the subject. (The infamous "invisible hand of the market" that's often quoted to support a laissez-faire policy is completely out of context in such a debate.)
It's been said that all it takes to destroy a communist system is for one person in the system to fail. On a similar note, all it takes to destroy a capitalist system is for one company in the system to succeed.
In Massachusetts, the wiretapping law criminalizes all secret recording of conversations, even those that take place in public.
How does that make any sense at all? A wiretap violation has two essential components that are right there in the name. You must first have a wire, a technological device that establishes a communication channel between a limited number of parties, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. You must also have a tap, a technological device that breaches the privacy of the wire's communications channel. If a conversation takes place in the open air where anyone can listen in, there is no wire to tap.
How did a statute like this not get immediately shot down by the nearest court for being too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously?
Precisely. The more you look at it, the more it appears that the entirety of the Democratic debate system this time around is designed to turn it into a coronation for Hillary and shut down anyone and anything that gets in the way. Seeing as how she's thoroughly corrupt from beginning to end, the worst thing that could possibly happen to her would be to give serious attention to a candidate whose strongest issue is fighting corruption!
That's a barbaric rule, under the most literal definition: the concept it represents is directly opposed to the concept of civilization itself.
One of the most fundamental pillars of civilization is specialization. Farmers become really good at farming, so that the rest of us don't have to grow our own food, lifting everyone out of a basic subsistence lifestyle, and the rest of us learn to become specialized craftsmen, engineers, laborers, soldiers, teachers, doctors and so on, each becoming an expert at one thing, and look what it's done for us!
I wear clothes I didn't make, made from fabric spun from fibers from plants I didn't grow. I drive a car so advanced that I literally couldn't ever hope to build one like it from scratch if I devoted my entire life to it. Same goes with the computer I'm typing this on, not to mention the infrastructure needed to make both cars and computers run. My breakfast this morning contained ingredients from 3 different countries, and arrived at my location fresh and still fit for human consumption.
I'm able to do all these things, and so are you, because we're able to implicitly trust that all these things around us that we don't fully understand were produced by experts who do understand what they were doing and who did a good job. You may not think of it in those terms, but that basic expectation is there.
Caveat emptor is the antithesis of that. The idea that the responsibility for not getting screwed over in a purchase is on the buyer, not the seller, implicitly requires that the buyer be in a position to competently evaluate every purchase. It is, in effect, requiring everyone to become an expert on everything that affects their lives, and then when this inevitably fails, because in a specialized civilization even the most intelligent people simply don't have the time or the brainpower to do so, saying that it's their own fault for failing at something they should never have had to do in the first place.
Caveat emptor is victim-blaming at its very ugliest, and it's a principle of barbarism, directly opposed to civilization. Can we please just drop it from our collective vocabulary already?
(Note: Before any of the usual suspects try to twist my words around, nothing I said here should be interpreted as saying anything about my opinion of any aspect of the legal case under discussion in this article. I just find the concept of caveat emptor repulsive.)