card image

Radio show date 12-23-2022

Click here to watch this video


John C Morley (00:09):

Hi everyone. I'm John C Morley, the JMOR Tech Talk Show, and Inspirations for Your Life host.

John C Morley (01:01):

Hey guys here, and welcome to actually the last episode for 2022. Actually, we have one more; I should say that we actually have one more week. We have the 30th. I'm thinking last, but we actually do have one more week to go. We saw the 30th. So, we have one more. It's the second to last. All right. I guess I'm just going to look excited about 2023 coming around. But we have a great show for you guys tonight, and we have some great guests coming up in 2023, which I can't tell you about tonight, but there are lots of great ones coming up. And definitely check out; there's a QR code in the top right. Just scan that QR code, and you'll pop right over to my link with lots of great information to improve the quality of your life.

John C Morley (01:46):

All right, well, let's get right into this, shall we? So, when we're thinking about technology, right, the question is, you know, what's actually going on in our world? So, one thing that's going on in our world is, I don't know if you guys know about this, but this is kind of crazy. Facebook Meta settles the Cambridge Analytica scandal for seven 25 million. Wow. this is pretty amazing. So, Facebook owner Meta platforms, META.O, has agreed to pay 725 million to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing social media giant, quote, unquote, of allowing third parties, including Cambridge Analytica, to access users' personal information. I always told you that I smelled the rat with them and that, you know, we never could trust them and that they were only going to do things for their own back pocket and money they were going to make, and they didn't care what they did for me or what they did for you, and what information they might have inadvertently let's say stolen from us and allow other people to just have access to that.

John C Morley (02:53):

So, I have like very little respect for them. The settlement was disclosed in a late court filing this past Thursday, and it would resolve a long-running lawsuit prompted by the revelations in 2018 that Facebook had allowed the British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to access the data of as many as 87 million users. I think that is just, I mean, that's absolutely crazy. I mean so crazy that I can tell you that, you know, these big giants, they are not going to be able to pass the mustard. You know, just because they have a few million or billion dollars doesn't mean that they should skate by on what can be done to protect our personal data. And it doesn't give them a right to be able to exploit our data for money. I mean, it really doesn't. And lawyers for the plaintiff call for the proposed settlement to be the largest to ever be achieved in the US data privacy class action and the most that meta has ever paid to resolve a class action lawsuit.

John C Morley (04:07):

So, I see these kinds of numbers just getting higher and higher. 725, you know, a million is nothing for Facebook. And although it's not going to put them out of business, it is going to put a big hamper on whether they're going to be able to operate as they did in the past. They kept getting some $25 million lawsuits every couple of months, or remember the year. I think that would take a little bit of a chunk out of their profits. So, we're going to have to wait and see what goes on. But I am very happy to see that the judge has made them pay this. And Cambridge Analytica obtained the information without the user's consent from a researcher who had been allowed by Facebook to deploy an app on its social media network that harvested data from millions of users. I've always told you, folks, that if you put data on the internet, you put it in social media; it's not yours.

John C Morley (05:07):

I'm not saying they should exploit you, but when you put data online, I don't trust it. Anyone, their mother and brother, or a bad actor could come out of it to use that data. So, the Cambridge Analytica scandal fueled the government investigation into its privacy practices, lawsuits, and a high-profile US congressional hearing where meta chief executive Mr. Mark Zuckerberg was grilled by lawmakers; I'm sure he was sweating through his suit on that day. In 2019, Facebook agreed to pay 5 billion to resolve a Federal Trade Commission probe into its privacy practices and a hundred million to settle US Securities and Exchange Commission claims that had misled investors about the misuse of users' data. But now, ladies and gentlemen, that was peanuts compared to what they had to pay 725 million.

John C Morley (06:04):

So, I guess this comes down to the fact that, you know, Facebook is going to be like the example child; hopefully, other people are going to say, hey, look what Facebook was hit with. And you know, we better be careful because that could come down to us whether we're talking about other platforms they own or LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, or other platforms out there. So, the settlement covers an estimated 250 to 280 million Facebook users, according to Thursday's court filing. And how much an individual user receives will depend on how many people submit valid claims for a share of the particular settlement. Now, lawyers, so the plaintiff say they may plan to ask the judge to award them up to 25% of the settlement statement as attorney's fees equal to about 181 million. Wow, that's a few dollars there, isn't it? And so, this, ladies and gentlemen, is just the beginning.

John C Morley (07:01):

I think it's trying to tell us that, hey, just because you have a few bucks doesn't mean you can exploit the American population or any of the population. And if you do well, you're going to be paying the piper. And we mean in some pretty hefty fines. And I don't mean like 5,000, 10,000; we're talking millions. I see us getting even higher than these millions down the road. You know, when we talk about the fact of what they got assessed and had to pay seven 25 million. I see if they keep going the way they're going, why not charge them a billion? I mean, Facebook could pay for it, right? But I see that seven 25 million is just a slap on the wrist, but I think it'll get even worse. We could be talking 1 million, 2 million, 4 million, 5 million, or even 10 million. And how about you?

John C Morley (07:50):

That's a lot of money for a company like Facebook. And when we start hitting their pocketbook, they're going to start paying attention to what we business owners, Americans, and other people around the globe have to say about Facebook. And yes, the new meta didn't fool anybody by changing their name. We still know them as Facebook, and, you know, people say, why did they change their name? They did it because they were hoping to go under their radar. But, you know, Facebook, you're not fooling anybody. You might think you're clever and crafty, but at the end of the day, you're just going to get socked with more fines. So, we'll keep you in the loop about what's happening with Facebook as this year evolves and as next year evolves. But I think it's going to set a standard for where social media giants will have to be able to play and what they will be able to do and not do.

John C Morley (08:42):

And new laws are going to come about. I've already told you that there's going to be more litigation in terms of social media and online as opposed to just in person we've always had in person. But now we're going to have online rules, but you're going to change things just a little bit. Our ladies and gentlemen, we know that the ever-popular Mr. Elon Musk. Well, he says he will step down as CEO of Twitter when he finds a replacement. So, what the heck is going on? I mean, Elon, why did you buy Twitter? I mean, why is Elon stepping down? He confirmed this past Tuesday evening he'll be stepping down as the company CEO, but only when he finds a successor and directly addresses for the first time a Twitter poll he created this week in which millions of users voted for his outing.

John C Morley (09:35):

Wow, that's pretty tough. In a recent tweet, Mr. Musk said he would resign, quote, as soon as he found someone foolish enough to take the job close; he added that following his resignation as CEO, Musk would quote-unquote run the software and servers' team, quote unquote at Twitter, indicating he makes the team to exercise significant influence on the company's decision-making power. But is he really going to have power, or was it the stock market? And then, let's say investors that actually pushed him into a quarter and said, hey, Elon, you got to step down because we don't believe the Kool-Aid that you're making. So, after more than a day of silence about the poll filing its outcome, the announcement came. And this past Monday, more than 17 million users had voted, 57.5% of whom said Musk should resign. The billionaire executive addressed the results only indirectly.

John C Morley (10:31):

He suggested that future Twitter polls could be restricted to pay users of Twitter blue and the company subscription service. Great Elon. So now you're going to try to alienate people if they don't pay. I mean, that's just going to be really cool. I'm sure that's going to go over really well with your stock investors now; Musk's Poll asking users whether he should resign as CEO came after a massive backlash to Twitter's abrupt suspension of several journalists who cover him, as well as Twitter's decision to ban and then Unban links to other social media platforms. So, my question is, what the heck are you doing, Elon? Under his leadership, Twitter had laid off the majority of its staff, alienated major advertisers, and welcomed former president Donald Trump back to the platform after his suspension in the wake of the January 6th Capitol Riots and released inter-internal communication to journalists about Twitter's operations before most took ownership of the company.

John C Morley (11:28):

So, what's Elon doing? I don't know. I think this is part of a power ploy. I don't think he really cares what he does with Twitter. I think it's just like a game for him. I don't think he understands that his money is affecting many people's lives and that there will be consequences for him and others. So, I feel the reason that he's stepping down is because of obviously the investors wanting him to step down. But I feel he's stepping down to avoid backlashes, to avoid things in the media that might cause him some real financial hardship and cause him to lose some of those billions he owns. Actually, gentlemen, Elon Musk is not the wealthiest person in the world. And if you want to know who is the wealthiest person in the world, do you know who that is right now?

John C Morley (12:19):

The wealthiest person in the world right now happens to be Bernard Arnold. He's the co-founder, chair, and CEO of LVMH. He's the richest person and the richest man in the world, with a net worth of 172.9 billion. Behind our note is the co-founder and CEO of Tesla Yama. So, Elon is the second wealthiest person in the world, but he is not the wealthiest person in the world. So hopefully, that gives you some interesting insights there. And LVMH, okay, is a luxury goods company. And they're a leader in high-quality products. You know, basically, they have wines and spirits, they have perfumes, watches, selective retailing, they have excursions, they have houses, right? They have lots of different things, and they have this setup for a unique target of people.

John C Morley (13:27):

And that's who they're going after. And so that's what LVMH is; that's what they're doing. And you might be asking me, John, so who keeps LVMH up and running? Well, you know, that's a great question. So, LVMH is funded by quite a few investors. They have 5,556 stores. They have 75 houses and 175,000 employees. Wow. They currently bring in 64.2 billion in the British pound. That was in 2021. And they have a net profit group share of 12 billion pounds. They have an operating margin of 26.7%. That was all in 2021. Wow. So, their next big event is coming up in 2023. It's April 20th, 2023, and that will be the annual general meeting of the LVMH. And so, I think this company is really setting a bar to what people want as a status symbol.

John C Morley (14:38):

I mean, we're talking about things like, you know, houses. We're talking about wines and spirits. We're talking about fashion and leather goods. We're talking about perfumes and cosmetics. We're talking about watches and jewelry. We're talking about selective retailing with high-end items, other activities, and excursions like high-end private cruises, gold custom-made animals, and artifacts for your home. Gold keys. So, there's a lot that this company is bringing to market and currently does bring to market. Chandon is a big part of what they do. Tiffany and Co definitely are very involved with them, Louis Vuitton, and many others. But the fact of the matter is that this company is trying to raise a bar to tell people this is what it needs to be. Nehemiah might be wondering, where is the LVMH Moet Hennessy out of?

John C Morley (15:38):

Well, it's Louis Vuitton, and it's at 22 Avenue Montaigne 75,008 Parish France. So, Louis Vuitton is behind LVMH, which is not surprising. I feel that they're trying to appeal to a certain discriminated person demographic. And so, they're going after people who want a certain lifestyle and creating those things so that people can experience them in their everyday lives. They even have a special part on their website that says if you have a complaint about how we process your data, you also have the right to contact the commission's nationality and implement an implementation queue at the Leese in the French Data Protection Authority. So, I think they're really trying to do what's best for the American people. And for the French, British, and everyone around the world, I think they're just trying to appeal to a high-end audience that appreciates this type of quality products and services.

John C Morley (16:58):

So again, our wealthiest man in the universe is not Mr. Elon Musk. So, I know many of you'll probably be happy to know that he's not the wealthiest man. All right. So, in other news, hundreds, ladies and gentlemen, of Tyson workers left, but why did they leave? This is kind of, I don't know, strange; hundreds of Tyson Foods employees are expected to leave the company following its decision to close two offices in Illinois and other in South Dakota. And many, let's say, private sources have told the Wall Street journalists, now this is a meat supplier, and they're basically shutting down the offices to consolidate its corporate workforce to its US headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas. Tyson gave employees the option to relocate, but three-quarters of the 500 employees in South Dakota opted against it. And more than 90% of Chicago workers also declined, according to the journal.

John C Morley (17:58):

So, what the heck is going on? So, Tyson is not firing these people, but it's giving them a chance to relocate, yet they don't want to. Does that mean people are stubborn and don't want to be flexible? I think that's what that means. Tyson had to do what was best for its pocket, but they didn't cut anybody. They offered ways to get people to their new headquarters and gave them some good packages to help them. But I feel that people are looking for excuses, you know, and so they're not the only ones laying off. PEPSICO is laying off workers at the headquarters of its North American Snacks and Beverage Division. And this is a sign that corporate belt-tightening is definitely extending beyond tech and beyond media and is occurring to Lauren Thomas. And so, you know, do we think we'll still see more layoffs across consumer goods industries?

John C Morley (18:53):

I think the answer is yes. I think we're going to start to see technology. We're going to start to see automation, and hopefully, this automation, I don't want to say, is going to replace people, but this is what they're trying to do because, you know, they're blaming everything still in Covid. They're blaming the fact that they can't make money on Covid. But let's stop blaming, and let's just get to work and start making money. I mean, anybody can sit there and blame all day long, right? So why don't we come up with a plan and actually do something instead of trying to blame what was, and let's create what should be? So definitely, lots of amazing things happened, and I think it was great. A big kudos off to Tyson's world headquarters; they were not going to be planning to fire any of these people but inviting them to come to their corporate offices.

John C Morley (19:39):

But these people said, no, I guess they must have an ego that's a little bit too high. I guess they don't want to come and support the corporate mission. What are you going to do, ladies and gentlemen? But I feel that these people are really their enemy because Tyson is trying to give them everything they need to become whole and, in some cases, even more money, but they're saying no to this situation. So, we'll keep following this story and many others about the fact that there will probably be more layoffs in the food and hospitality industry, unfortunately. So, we will definitely keep you abreast of what's happening there. Well, many of you don't know that I actually am an Eagle Scout, and you know, becoming an Eagle Scout in May of 1983 also helps me think back about how important it is for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts today and all that we have done and continue to do to help promote great relations with people, bring the community together and help support good causes.

John C Morley (20:48):

Well, take a look at this one. Facial recognition kicked a Girl Scout mom out of the Radio City musical. I mean, what the heck is this all about? A lady getting kicked out of a Radio City musical from seeing the Rockettes because of facial recognition? I mean, was she a terrorist? No, she wasn't a terrorist. But according to the people that own Radio City Music Hall, the mom, and lawyers like her who work for forums federal firms, I should say that you are suing Radio City's parent company MSG Entertainment are barred from setting foot in its venues while the litigation is ongoing. Wow. So, an attorney from a law firm suing the parent company of Radio City Music Hall was kicked out. I mean, this is just terrible. And Kelly Colin, a senior associate with New Jersey Personal Injury Firm Davis Saperstein and Solomon, which is representing a client suing a restaurant owned by the parent company MSG Entertainment, told NBC New York, that security guards approached her and asked for identification as soon as she arrived on the weekend after Thanksgiving.

John C Morley (22:03):

Now, the guards ultimately turned her away from the show, and even though she is not involved in her firm's litigation against the company, Colin's daughter and the rest of the Girl Scouts were able to attend the performance. And she did tell the station that. So, it was nice to let everybody else in, but they didn't let her in. And I want to include an important quote. I was just a mom, taking my daughter to see a Christmas show, close quote. She told NBC New York. I did wait outside. It was embarrassing. It was mortified close. So, when a company takes action, this is almost as bad as if somebody, let's say, does something, whether it's a parent or child, we shouldn't hold the other person, you know, negligible responsible. So, let's say the parents acted in a manner that was not appropriate, right?

John C Morley (22:57):

And now suddenly the kid can't be friends with them or their family because the other adults can't play nice together. That's really what this is. This is a childish game; somebody just got a big ego, and that's what it's about. I mean, this wasn't about protecting anybody's assets. We all know this. I think it's terrible that they can do stuff like this. About two weeks before Conlon was barred, her firm filed a complaint against the company's policy with the New York State Liquor Authority, alleging that MSG entertainment's liquor license requires it to admit members of the public to its venue other than people who may be disruptive and cause security threats. They're told NBC New York. So, this tells you why, and I get a general idea, but this lady wasn't even part of the litigation. So just because you work for a company and the company says that the grass is red, I got to believe that, or you've got to take my value, or if it has something to do with human rights because I believe a certain way means the whole firm believes that way shouldn't be like that.

John C Morley (24:14):

But I think this is just some lawyers really just with some big egos just trying to throw their weight around. I don't think it's really about protecting anybody. And I want to also include a quote from a spokesperson called Policy Straightforward, which said, quote, attorneys at firms pursuing litigation against it are welcome at its venues once the litigation is resolved. Close quote. I think this is a little bit out there; another quote I'd like to make is that they made a quote; while we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adversarial environment. Close quote, MSG entertainment statement continued. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis Saperstein and Solomon, which were notified twice in this particular situation. Only the one attorney who chose to attend was not permitted to enter despite being notified in advance that she would be denied entry.

John C Morley (25:13):

And the rest of her group, including the Gross Scouts, were all able to attend and enjoy the show. Close quote. So, I think this means that they were given sufficient notice that they would be, you know, Bard, she was warned. It's almost like if somebody says, you know, you did something, you're not allowed to travel, right? So, you don't travel, but who's really at fault here? Is it the mom? Is it the litigation of the other attorneys? I have to say the attorneys are not right, but the mother's not right either. You know, this whole thing's going on. And they did warn her, and they warned all the other firms, but yet she brazenly felt that she would just go attend the show. Maybe she should have had someone else go, maybe her husband or a relative, and say, I'm probably not going to be admitted.

John C Morley (26:06):

I don't want to cause any embarrassment. Let me just have another family member or someone else from the troupe go along. But she decided to bucket. And I think this is the reason why this is so devastating. She knew that she could possibly be banned and would not be let in, yet she still plowed forward. The policy has come under fire from several firms involved in the lawsuit against it, some of whom have unchallenged, and some excessively challenged the ban in court at a hearing just last month; chancellor Kathleen McCormick of Delaware Chancellor Court called the policy quote, the stupidest thing I've ever read, routers reported. So, New York Court's records show that more than 20 active lawsuits are pending against MSG entertainment and its properties in the state. I think, ladies and gentlemen, this just gets to the point that there are some things that just don't make sense.

John C Morley (27:04):

And I have to tell you, this does not make sense. The lady was not even part of the panel that brought the litigation. She probably doesn't even work in that department. So, I can't say I agree with what they're doing, but I do understand the fact that she's also not right because they at least did warn her. It wasn't like, hey, we didn't say anything, and then we banned you. They warned them two times that these firms were not going to be able to get in if they worked there. But I guess she just missed that memo or didn't read that email. So, I think she's also at fault; even though I don't agree with the lawyers, she's also going against a direct order that was given to her by another company. So again, she's not innocent here. All right, so how about ladies and gentlemen? We hear about this every day. People are using the internet to search for things. What if you were to go online and simply search, and this search led to an online scam? I mean, tell me what that would mean to you. I mean, just think about that for a second. Simple web searches lead to scams.

John C Morley (28:36):

I mean, does that even mean anything to you? Does that have any relevance? And I think you might say, John, this is kind of crazy, and you know, I agree, but I have to tell you that there are a lot of bad actors in the last few years that are paying money to actually get people to fall into traps. I've had a hat with clients and relatives. And so just by making a search and a bad actor, let's say, putting something up and hoping that you're going to click on it, that could be a really big problem.

John C Morley (29:20):

So, what's the solution to that? The solution is that we need to become more aware of what's going on. And a simple online search, as we say, could lead to a major scam. Scammers are using misleading ads to get people to click on websites that have nothing to do with what they're going for. For example, let's say that you were going to travel to a country, and maybe when you typed in something to do with travel or cruise, you suddenly got to a website that was going to exploit you. See, that's a problem, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, a serious, really big problem and innocent people don't know this, but just think about this for a second. Let's just pretend that I don't know; a typical one that happens all the time is there might be a divorce. And now let's say you're back in touch with the ex and your friends on the one side, right?

John C Morley (30:23):

And you're still talking, but now that other part finds out, and suddenly, they now hire people from other countries on the dark web and put campaigns out there to get you to click on something because they know you probably are interested in that, and then they get into your computer, and they scam you. I don't have, or I should say any other advice in that when you click on something, you have to know what the heck you're clicking on. If you just click online like a madman, well then, you're going to get in trouble. I mean, it's just, there, there are no if, and or buts, but running an ad like that in a small town, very geofenced, is going to get your target to click on it, and then they're going to be exploited. And you know what's going to happen? It's going to be a major problem.

John C Morley (31:24):

It could get into a potential lawsuit; it could get into restraining orders; it could get into so much stuff. So, my issue is that if you're part of this, or if you feel you're going to be part of this, realize that couple minutes of, let's say, the power you're going to feel will be nothing compared to what the judge is going to do to you and how hard he's going to come down to you with fines and potential penalties, and maybe even sentences that are going to make this not so attractive to do. So, I would tell you that if that sure motive doesn't. And if you're a bad actor from another country, I want to tell you that the rules in the United States are getting harder every day. They're clamping down. We already talked about the fact that when you send an email, if that's an unsolicited email, you have to put in the email your address or find a way to opt out.

John C Morley (32:24):

If you don't do that, ladies and gentlemen, you know what's going to happen. You're violating the anti-can act of New Jersey. You might say, John, well, what is the penalty? What is the penalty for violating the US Can SPAM Act? What's the penalty for that? Well, each separate email in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act is subject to penalties, ladies and gentlemen, up to $46,517. So, anyone that is not in compliance could be getting themselves a few Christmases presents or New Year's E bills. But following the law isn't complicated to understand the CAN-SPAM Act Law. It's really simple. A lot of people feel that they don't need to do it. So don't use false or misleading header information like you're from or to or reply information. Don't do that because if you do that, you're already what I call spoofing. You're acting as somebody that's not who they really are.

John C Morley (33:33):

That means don't use domain names or names that would misidentify you or identify you incorrectly. Don't use deceptive subject lines to get people to read your message when it has nothing to do with that message. Tell recipients where you're located. Don't make that a secret. Tell recipients how to opt out of receiving future emails. Have a link at the bottom. Make it really easy and visible. Don't make the link something that when they click on, it says the link can't be found. I can't tell you how many emails I get. I clicked on the link, and that was not found. Honor opt-out requests promptly; anyone with an OPTOUT system makes sure that if you use it, you will properly take the request and respond to it within 30 days. I know we get an opt-out; we opt somebody out and use you within 24 hours, which is well above the law standards, but the loss that you have to do within 30 days.

John C Morley (34:26):

Now, you can't charge a fee or require the recipient to give you any personal identifier information beyond an email address to make the opt-out really important and monitor what others are doing on your behalf. Because if you don't, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to start getting these bills, bills that are going to pile up. And we're already seeing what's happening with the robocall industry and the infamous insurance scams. They call you and tell you that you know your car will be under warranty soon, and you have to subscribe now. And if you don't, it's going to be a major issue. I know it's just, it's really crazy. But I think we can all understand that email is not a right if it is a privilege to use it. We need to get permission before we use it, and we have to be polite when we use it. Do we just knock on someone's door at 11 o'clock at night? Do we just call them any hour of the night? No, they'll be harassing them. So, we shouldn't do that with email. Of course, there are not a lot of laws except for the US CAN-SPAM Act, but there are other laws. And again, the fine for the US CAN-SPAM Act is not too inexpensive, okay? The CAN-SPAM ACT is enforced primarily by the federal trade, which can seek civil penalties of up to $16,000 per violation.

John C Morley (36:07):

That's quite a bit, isn't it? So, each separate email in violation of CAN-SPAM is subject to penalties of up to 46,000 dollars. But they are saying that the FTC, okay, the FTC has the ability to go up to $16,000. And then with the other rules that we've been learning about, up to $46,517. So, the FTC has authorized the Canned Spam Act, as we talked about, and it can seek a civil penalty of up to $16,000. The other penalties are more on the criminal side. So, a civil penalty is something you did. Maybe you're asking somebody to vote for someone, or maybe you're just trying to get someone to buy a product from you, and you're spamming people. What is spam? Spam is sending unsolicited email, emails to people. You don't have a direct relationship with people. You don't have a direct demographic or specialty.

John C Morley (37:09):

So, for example, if you're selling, I don't know, firewood, and you send an email out to everyone in your town that's spamming. If you go online and send an email to people looking for firewood, well then, they have an interest, right? But the question people say to me is, John, can I get, can I sue under the CAN-SPAM Act? And you know, that's a great question. So, the CAN-SPAM Act does not give consumers who see spam emails a standing to file a private lawsuit for damages. In actuality, this can only be enacted by the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. So instead, private citizens must rely on the FTC or State Attorneys General to sue on their behalf, to recover damages, impose civil penalties, or impose injunctions as well as criminal penalties. So, are you tired of receiving spam emails?

John C Morley (38:00):

I bet you are. The Canned Spam Act is meant to help stop this, but it's not going to happen overnight. So, the Canned Spam Act does not give consumers the right to go after basically spam solicitors. And so you might be a little bit annoyed by this; this rule could change in the future, but I see that where we're going with spam and the rules that are going to evolve, it's going to make people think twice. Now, you might ask me, John, what is the penalty? This is another good one. What is the penalty? Okay, what's the penalty for Robo calling? All right, so the Robo-Call penalty right now is about $10,000. So, the telephone robocall abuse criminal enforcement and deterrence act basically find spam Robo callers from $1,500 to as much as $10,000 per illegal call. So that should hopefully discourage you from trying to set up any kind of robocall practice.

John C Morley (39:11):

So, is there a new law about robocalls? Yes. So, since 2021, voice service providers must block phone traffic from any provider that is neither certified to implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication standards nor file a detailed robocall mitigation plan because we all know that things like this are going to happen and, and they're not trying to go after people for those one or two incidents that happened by accident. They're trying to go after people that intentionally try to use robocalling as a hard-hit method to get results and even annoy and abuse people. So, the question that comes up to everyone every day is how much can you sue for robocalling? So, the laws vary from state to state. In California, the law allows a person who has received an unsolicited phone call to sue a caller in small claims court for a thousand dollars civil penalty.

John C Morley (40:08):

So, since we're in New Jersey, what is the amount Sue for a robocall in New Jersey? So, violators may receive penalties of up to $10,000. So, in New Jersey, the rules are still a little bit different, but the law is still around the $1,000 mark per claim. If you receive a Robo call trying to sell you something and you haven't given the call or your written permission, it's an illegal call; you should hang up and then file a complaint with the FTC and registry. You can do that very easily right after this show. Now, what happens if you press one on a Robocall? Well, what should happen is if you do press one, you'll be put through to a lot of times a scammer who may well be in a different country. It's highly likely that the scammer will request a payment or personal information such as bank details to avoid the problem.

John C Morley (41:09):

Don't do it. They'll be scamming you, and you might lose your identity. So how do you remove yourself from robocalls? Well, just visit Their number is 1-888-382-222. That's 1-888-382-1222 to verify the status of or unsubscribe your phone number from the registry. Again, you can do it all from So, place your phone number on the DND registry. We'll stop telemarketing calls, but you might still receive calls from scammers and Robo callers. Unfortunately, the system is not a hundred percent flawless. And so, why don't phone companies block robocalls? Well, there are a number of ways to use the technology and reduce the number of annoying robocalls, but the US phone companies have generally left it up to consumers to defend themselves against the telemarketing onslaught. We have things like Nomo Robo and other types of things like that.

John C Morley (42:02):

The problem is that you often might make a phone call from a company and not be able to reach someone on their cell phone because they're using Nomo Robo. However, it wasn't you that caused the Robo violation; it was someone at your company because you're dialing from a main number that it shows. So how many spam calls are considered harassment? Well, just one unwelcome call can be harassing through a single misdial or wrong number. The call might not rise to a level of harassment. It happens. It's an accident, but it's a good idea to tell the recipient of such a call that, hey, I missed dial, I'm sorry, rather than, you know, just hanging up. It's good to let them know that you made a mistake and most people are going to be like, hey, you made a mistake. It's no big deal.

John C Morley (42:50):

Right? But when people try to hide things, when they try to do things that are going to prevent identity, that's when we have issues. Is it a crime to call someone repeatedly? So, as we mentioned before, you can be convicted under a penal code 653m PC for calling or contacting someone repeatedly, making threats, or using obscene language on the phone in an electronic communication. So, is calling someone more than once harassment? Yes. to any of these because you or someone you know may be a victim of criminal harassment, a stalking situation, and stalking behaviors, including calling you over and over again and perhaps hanging up whenever you answer the phone, contacting you on the internet through constant text or emails would definitely be considered stalking. Now, of course, if it's someone, let them know, hey, you don't want this documented. And if you feel it's not working, you can tell them, hey, I'm going to go to the police.


John C Morley (43:54):

But if any time someone calls you when you feel like your life is in a situation where it could be at risk, of course, you could go to your local police department and file a complaint, and they will take the appropriate actions to make sure your life is protected by issuing a protection order. Ladies and gentlemen, you know who I am by now. I am John C Morley, a serial entrepreneur. It has been an amazing privilege, pleasure, and honor to be with you this fantastic December 23rd Friday on the JMOR Tech Talk show. For those of you ladies and gentlemen that are currently celebrating Hanukkah, I want to take this opportunity to wish you a happy sixth day of Hanukkah and, of course, a very merry Christmas to all my friends and myself that celebrate Christmas. And so, I think to ladies and gentlemen, you know, it's important to understand that technology, just like a weapon, is not good. It's not bad.


John C Morley (45:00):

It's how we as people decide to employ that technology to whether it will be used for good or used for bad. I hope you guys have a great rest of your weekend. I hope you enjoy the rest of your Hanukkah, Kwanza, and all the other holidays out there. Of course, Merry Christmas, and I hope you have lots of great fun and good times with your family and friends. And you know what, ladies and gentlemen? I'm going to see you next Friday at the last JMOR Tech Talk show for 2022. Also, check out IFYLd you can go to because, yes, I'll be celebrating IFYL's birthday very soon, and you're not going to want to miss that IFYL Inspiration for Your Life actually turns one year. Yes. Celebrates one year old. I am so excited about that. Have yourself a great one, everyone. And I will see you guys. Yes, next Friday, December 30th, right here at the exact same time. Take care, everyone, and be well.


 Click here to watch this video