PDA

View Full Version : Skype Auto Dialer for AB962


natasha69
10-02-2009, 8:24 PM
I'm going to play around on my mac and see if I can create a script to auto dial from Skype to the Governor's #. If anyone has done this before, please PM me. If anyone has done this on Windows, please PM me.

If we create these scripts, and distribute them across the US, since Skype domestic calls are free, theoretically we could clog the phone lines.

For the legal eagles on the forum, is this kosher? Everyone who initiates the script would be doing it voluntarily.

obeygiant
10-02-2009, 9:37 PM
Have you checked out this thread on the skype forum?
New Autodialer for Apple Address Book on Mac OS X (http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=20805)

Direct link to the author's home page here (http://homepage.mac.com/jcmallery/qualityshareware/ABSkype.html)

obeygiant
10-02-2009, 11:10 PM
I posted instructions for auto dialing on your cell phone here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3151443&postcount=291) that may be of use when creating your script.

Aleksei Vasiliev
10-02-2009, 11:21 PM
does it autovote
and if so
does it vote for the right choice

obeygiant
10-02-2009, 11:33 PM
does it autovote
and if so
does it vote for the right choice

If you're speaking of my post on programming your cell phone then yes it does. If it is in regards to the link for the auto dialer for skype then no it doesn't.

bwiese
10-03-2009, 1:17 AM
Please realize if another 'hot' bill bubbles to the top or in the top 3, the ordering may change.

This happened two years ago on AB1471.

CharlieK
10-03-2009, 5:20 AM
It is possible that the Governor's automated feedback system is capable of identifying the phone number from which the voter is calling? If so, could it consider multiple calls from the same number as just one call?

I don't mind making multiple calls (or using technology to autodial) but if their system won't count them anyway, I'm wasting time. Anyone know for sure?

beetle
10-03-2009, 6:22 AM
i'm not so sure this is a good idea. if the staff see outrageous numbers, they may investigate, and if they suspect automated scripts in play may throw out the phone results altogether.

bruss01
10-03-2009, 8:37 AM
Can't repeated dialing a number with the intention of disrupting or annoying some kind of crime? For instance if the local Midas Muffler shop has an answering machine for accepting business calls after hours, and you decide you don't like them for whatever reason and want to make it difficult or impossible for anyone to call after hours about getting some muffler work done, so you set up an auto-dialer to constantly keep their line busy, I think that's illegal. Maybe under some stalking, harassing or commerce blocking statute. I appreciate anyone's enthusiasm for defeating this legislation, but if you're caught could they say you are intentionally blocking a government phone system? Has anyone checked the Patriot Act to see if there is a clause covering this kind of "terrorism"? After all you are doing it to influence policy or legislation. That makes it politically motivated, right? Think twice and do serious homework before you go coloring outside the lines.

Remember, that line is used for more than just commenting on legislation. You would be blocking all legitimate users of the system, not just 962 supporters. Certainly, call every time the notion strikes you, you can blame that on your undiagnosed OCD. But setting up an autodialer implies premeditation. Just food for thought.

GrizzlyGuy
10-03-2009, 8:46 AM
I don't mind making multiple calls (or using technology to autodial) but if their system won't count them anyway, I'm wasting time. Anyone know for sure?

I don't know, but a normal call would send caller ID info to them, and it would then be technically possible for them to filter out the dupes. Whether they are actually doing that is the unknown.

This article implies that calling through Skype as the OP is doing gets around caller ID:

"Use any service that routes the call from a third party. Examples include calling with a pre-paid phone card, or using Skype out from your computer."

http://www.wikihow.com/Block-Caller-ID

bwiese
10-03-2009, 9:55 AM
Can't repeated dialing a number with the intention of disrupting or annoying some kind of crime? For instance if the local Midas Muffler shop has an answering machine for accepting business calls after hours, and you decide you don't like them for whatever reason and want to make it difficult or impossible for anyone to call after hours about getting some muffler work done, so you set up an auto-dialer to constantly keep their line busy, I think that's illegal.

Citizens are freely allowed to contact their politicians, in an enthusiastic manner, to reflect their positions concerning ongoing legislation.

The fact that the system is overburdened reflects system design and budget issues,and is not a reflection on nature of usage, especially when it involves matters surrounding a fundamental right.

The goal of lighting up the lines is to show huge popular support against (or for, depending) a law and not to disable a PBX.

BTW, I strongly suspect that even the heaviest traffic on this line will not bring the PBX down for other uses.

obeygiant
10-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Citizens are freely allowed to contact their politicians, in an enthusiastic manner, to reflect their positions concerning ongoing legislation.

The fact that the system is overburdened reflects system design and budget issues,and is not a reflection on nature of usage, especially when it involves matters surrounding a fundamental right.

The goal of lighting up the lines is to show huge popular support against (or for, depending) a law and not to disable a PBX.

BTW, I strongly suspect that even the heaviest traffic on this line will not bring the PBX down for other uses.

It would be a shoddy design for a phone system if it did. Most likely they have separate PRI's (voice T1's) for their IVR.

obeygiant
10-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Can't repeated dialing a number with the intention of disrupting or annoying some kind of crime? For instance if the local Midas Muffler shop has an answering machine for accepting business calls after hours, and you decide you don't like them for whatever reason and want to make it difficult or impossible for anyone to call after hours about getting some muffler work done, so you set up an auto-dialer to constantly keep their line busy, I think that's illegal. Maybe under some stalking, harassing or commerce blocking statute. I appreciate anyone's enthusiasm for defeating this legislation, but if you're caught could they say you are intentionally blocking a government phone system? Has anyone checked the Patriot Act to see if there is a clause covering this kind of "terrorism"? After all you are doing it to influence policy or legislation. That makes it politically motivated, right? Think twice and do serious homework before you go coloring outside the lines.

Remember, that line is used for more than just commenting on legislation. You would be blocking all legitimate users of the system, not just 962 supporters. Certainly, call every time the notion strikes you, you can blame that on your undiagnosed OCD. But setting up an autodialer implies premeditation. Just food for thought.

I don't think the intent was to start a "war dialing" campaign but just to automate the process to make it easier, at least that was my intent with the instructions on how to program your cell phone.

As far as Caller ID goes, that can be blocked on land lines, cell phones and voip for that matter.

Gryff
10-03-2009, 10:48 AM
I can see it now...

"Oops. I voted for Harvey Milk Day 379 times..."

USAFTS
10-03-2009, 11:11 AM
Can't repeated dialing a number with the intention of disrupting or annoying some kind of crime?

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 653M

"Expands the scope of the current crime of making repeated phone calls or electronic communications with the intent to annoy a person at his or her residence by prohibiting making repeated communications regardless of where the communication is received."

xxdabroxx
10-03-2009, 12:11 PM
this is not "with the intent to annoy a person".

obeygiant
10-03-2009, 1:17 PM
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 653M

"Expands the scope of the current crime of making repeated phone calls or electronic communications with the intent to annoy a person at his or her residence by prohibiting making repeated communications regardless of where the communication is received."


CAL. PEN. CODE 653m

How and when this law is violated


(d) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when the person acting with
intent to annoy makes a telephone call or contact by means of an
electronic communication device requesting a return call and performs
the acts prohibited under subdivision (a) or (b) upon receiving the
return call.

(e) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when a person knowingly
permits any telephone or electronic communication under the person's
control to be used for the purposes prohibited by those subdivisions.

Now let's look at the actual sections it is referring to (Note, the text in blue)

(a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.
(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes
repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an
electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or
contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues
from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic
communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this
subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts
made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of
business.

Obviously the intent is NOT to annoy,harass,use obscene language or threaten injury.