If you have a smartphone, there are apps which can be installed and setup to block unwanted text messages. These apps can block texting using phone numbers and key words. Ensure when you use key words you select wording that is reasonably unique to the tects you are receivng…such as ‘redemlink’. Using more common words may inadvertently block wanted texts with the same word(s).
Also don’t use your mobile number for common usage in site sign-ups, competitions and similar as many of these feed into the ad and scam circuses. On Government or similar sites it is fine to use your normal number but be very careful to whom you supply it. Also register your mobile number with the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) at https://www.donotcall.gov.au/ and have a look at this following topic on the forum:
This answer in the topic
and this topic
Finally as SMSes are not part of the DNCR I recommend you make a Spam complaint to ACMA at their online submission form (if you haven’t done so yet) found at the following address (I know it’s a long one but it was difficult to cut it shorter):
Hi phbriggs2000 I have been reviewing the blocker apps this afternoon. Thanks for your comments. I can block specific numbers with inbuilt iPhone numbers but it’s the hidden IDs etc that have been getting through, especially the one I referred to. Links appreciated.
This is a very comprehensive posting, full of lots of information. I followed up some of these suggestions - I’m on the Do-not-call register; I will be more watchful about fine print in sign-ups; I made a post to Applemarketing; I checked out the responses. Although I had read the ‘Choice’ article I had forgotten how widespread the problems are. It’s often when you are the on the receiving end of unwanted span that you really focus. I heard on the radio this morning that there are about 54,000 charities - surely something that needs close attention. I wrote to ACMA but do not hold up much hope, based on Choice consumers’ comments. Appreciated your posting, Peter
Hi, your article raised the prospect of contacting the ACMA by email or an on-line submission form. Please allow me to share my experience of taking this action wrt an ABC program. Both ABC and ACMA claimed that they never received my “original complaint”. It took 3/4 communications including an apology for
“a possible technology glitch” after I advised that I was a lawyer and former Fed G manager. After 15 months I received a response that they still had not received that original complaint, even though it was included in the email chain font enlarged and in bold, and provided three rulings in the area of my complaint. Now logically how could they know the “area” unless they had read the complaint. The final result is that no further action was warranted. That last word is a strange use of a legal contractual concept. I them made a referral to the Federal Ombudsman’s Office. Two weeks later I received a response that they had reviewed the substance of my complaint and deemed there was no wrongdoing on the part of the ABC or ACMA. I submit that in six communications with various authorities not one communication mentioned a word, other than complaint, or a phrase from any of my emails. I submit that this is in complete breach of Administrative Law 101. A reason for a decision has no relevance unless some connection to your specific allegation is provided. Many private and government entities are subject to complaints and communications on many matters. I suspect an increasing use of AI applications to respond to communications. This process may be undergoing teething issues and will IMHO improve its deception skills over time. Back end propagation will improve the process over time. I suggest a way around the online revolution. Start by writing a letter and posting it. At law, the postal exception rule still applies. A further protection may involve photocopying your complaint or communication and having a JP or legal person certify the letter in the appropriate way. I appreciate that responding to spurious agendas is time consuming and may even be initiated by commercial competitors. However, this is an increasingly dishonest capitalist and Government scenario where appearance trumps the substance and nuanced words convey only meaningless messages. These can be effectively communicated by AI applications that have no feelings or concepts of integrity. Anyone can forum shop for an opinion or advocate to pursue any nefarious or misleading intent. Effective communicators, or wordsmiths, can create an entire message of plausible sounding nonsense. Just listen to Corporate CEOs, Parliamentarians, all bureaucracies and the media. Any words uttered by these spokespersons can be one of three things - the absolute truth, knowing absolute lies and anything in between. The honesty of any words uttered these days must be analysed through a fact checker. Even these nuanced folk have unconscious biases. Society is doomed in its current trajectory. Cheers Geoff
Confirmation from you and other ‘Choice’ respondents that ACMA will not be a valuable community agency in this process. Paul Barry, on ‘Media Watch’ has lamented, at times, the effectiveness of this agency as well.
Interesting point you make about snail mail in a digital age.
The time-consuming nature of registering complaints and having responses to them.
The spin cycle that you refer to, weapons of mass deception, and shopping for ‘opinions’
The challenge of discerning honesty and the truth
Your conclusion - that ‘society is doomed in its current trajectory’ - is somewhat gloomy but based on substantive grounds. The US under Trump is another gloomy scenario.
Because with scam, intrusive marketing, hidden IDs, gross interruption of people’s privacy - especially with 50,000+ registered charities, we are dealing with lots of dynamics. Through this ‘Choice’ forum I am adopting some specific strategies - including telephone blocking and I have downloaded a freeSMS blocker for iPhone. What remains unresolved for me are the other unsolicited phone calls from marketers and in those cases I am cutting off engagements, simply saying: ‘I am in the Do-not-call register’ Have a pleasant day. Cease the call.
Hi Peter, thanks for your ‘support’ for my diatribe regarding the ACMA. My issue is how we, the informed folk, can initiate change. Leveraging off Media Watch that concludes the ACMA is another of those useless G quangos that employ spin doctors yet have legislation that prevents any penalty regimes that could act as a deterrent to changes in conduct. In summary, I believe many G quangos are created to deceive voters and taxpayers that they have an effective outlet for their legitimate concerns. These agencies temporarily distract offended individuals from the real responsibility of our elected officials to perform the functions we pay them for. Clearly there are a range of possible behaviours, from absolute integrity to leveraging influence for financial reward. This may materialize instantly locally, or in offshore tax havens, or after the parliamentary period ends. Perhaps the majority lies somewhere in the middle spectrum. However, I submit the majority reality is below the integrity expectations of society. I believe most parliamentarians enter the fray with naive goodwill. Over time behaviours summarized by buzz phrases influence their psyches. These include confirmation bias, for the greater good, team behaviour, willful blindness, increasing hypocrisy and eventually cognitive dissonance. Constant attacks encourage the retreat to your own team, a victim mentality, and retaliatory activity that mimics the original offence(s). If the trajectory is regrettable, what can we do? I suspect a more centrist G, in the model adopted by E Macron in France, may achieve some disruption to existing corrupt arrangements. I would be prepared to allocate 3-5% of my total savings to such an action. Any political party must have a front person. So who would you (Peter) suggest? Is there a cleanskin available? I would prefer a social progressive, yet economic conservative/realist. I do not want to leave debt for my kids and grandkids to pay off or continue paying interest. Currently I can only think of Malcolm T, yet any very concerned by his association with the financial industrial complex. Clear controls on this behemoth are required, including deterrent penalties and jail time. This requires legislation that enables these outcomes.I am concerned at criticism of ASIC. Loudmouths rail that ASIC did not initiate real legal activity and went down the (un)enforceable undertaking route. Did anyone notice that ASIC lost its big case against a bank (CBA I think). This activity probably employed a significant proportion of resources. So why did this Court action fail. IMHO, 1. starts with inadequate and out of date legislation; 2. Inability of the Courts to deal with white collar crime; 3. The financial behemoth engages the best legal folk on retainers; 4. Judges send their kids and grandkids to the same schools as the accused and/or share social activity; 5. Subtle influence pedalling through a wide spectrum to overt corruption. 6. Any activity that regulates and investigates itself is subject to biases and self protecting mechanisms. 7. Judges are appointed by the sitting political persuasions, and I suspect are increasingly radicalised or polarised.
Your posting looks to a broader, centrist model of Government which might challenge some of the inequalities, even corrupt practices, in our present system and you enquire whether I am aware of any cleanskin who might lead such a reformist party. When I look at leadership in our present system I recall this quote: “The worst are full of a passionate intensity and the best lack all conviction.” People who stand out to me in Australian life in this area are Alan Fels and Andrew Leigh but they are ideas people who need to be supported by organisational structures and political clout. Andrew Leigh, as a Labor MP, and an ex-Harvard/ANU Economics Professor, is non-aligned and even though he has a shadow ministry role, he does not receive the remuneration that his other shadows do; he has decent values and can articulate them. It seems to me, however, that you are looking at a very broad, reformist agenda but in my view realistic solutions are more likely to come internally within the major parties rather than a third-way, as in France. And this is more likely to come when you have championing organisations like Choice, ACCC, or leaders who can promote national awareness and momentum around issues.
Hi Felicity: I will call iiNet today. Incidentally, I followed up another suggestion from this list and wrote to Apple Marketing to remove my phone number. I received a very positive response from Apple which said: “This means you will no longer receive calls from Apple Marketing on behalf of our 23 charities we represent across Australia.” Peter
unbelievable. they are all selling us off to somebody. You should read the cookies policies from all the companies you are with as well. sometimes it’s just better to know than not know what they are up to.