Home > 1. technology > Robocalls – Part II / Spy vs Spy – Part II

Robocalls – Part II / Spy vs Spy – Part II

August 26th, 2008

I recently posted about annoying Robocalls that I’ve received. In response to them, I’ve changed my phone setting so that no one who hides their phone number can call me. But that hasn’t stopped the robocallers. I just received my 40th or so “second notice” about my auto-warranty. This time, I got some information. The caller is “NIC Reinecker” at 620-585-0104.

Unfortunately, I could not reach anyone at that number. However, I did google the number and this interesting site popped up. This a spy vs spy site that lets people like you and me coordinate our efforts to fight these evil telemarketers. You can type in the number or name from your caller ID, and find out what others have experienced and tried to do to respond.

In this case, however, the only gratification I got is knowing that I am not alone in this fight. As I posted earlier, we just don’t have the tools to fight back on this scourge yet.

1. technology , ,

  1. August 27th, 2008 at 06:55 | #1

    Bummer that politicians are exempt from this law.

    We are fighting back, for the American voter.

    1 – Creating a Political Do Not Call Registry
    2 – Testifying in the US Senate about robo calls (Sen. Feinstein’s Robocall Privacy Act)
    3 – Forcing states to enforce existing robo call laws (CA, MN, NJ, etc..)
    4 – Getting politicians to take a do not robo call pledge (7 have)

    Learn more.

    Shaun Dakin
    A non-profit fighting for the privacy of the American voter

  2. August 27th, 2008 at 08:44 | #2


    You have an interesting cause and a nice web site.

    I have mixed feelings about political robocalls. On a personal level, I find them annoying and wish that they didn’t exist. On a policy level, I wonder if they shouldn’t be protected as free speech. I mean, protests can be annoying but they are required for a truly free society.

    Perhaps there is some middle ground. On your site, you haev a comment about how most robocalls don’t have a way to respond. I would support a law to require that all calls have a way to talk to a person about the robocall.

    Thanks for your comment.

    – Mike

  3. Jennifer
    August 27th, 2008 at 12:51 | #3

    Just in case anyone wants to Tolit Paper the Nic Reinecker the address to the phone number 620.585.0104 is 213 Doris St. Inman, KS 67546

    If I still lived in KS I’d do it for you but we live in TX now.

  4. August 27th, 2008 at 15:13 | #4

    It’s possible–even easy–to spoof the return phone number in the caller ID. In addition not to condoning illegal activity, I think the anger towards Nic Neinecker may be misdirected. Chances are, s/he is a victim here too.

  5. September 22nd, 2008 at 03:43 | #5

    I was getting robocalls all the time from a collection agency (trying to reach someone with the same name as someone who used to have my phone number). I called them up one day and just chewed him out. There’s no way this could’ve had any effect–I mean, if you work for a collection agency you must get this sort of call a hundred times a day–but it was satisfying, I’ll say that. We should all have the right to scream at someone who wastes our time. Although I guess this wouldn’t work so well if it were somebody in a call center in India or wherever. Perhaps they could have a law that the caller has to live nearby the callee, so that said caller has to be slightly worried that he might run into his victim on the street and have to explain why he keeps calling at dinnertime and leaving messages.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Olark Livehelp