This is aimed at tele-marketers that do not abide by the "Do not call" list.
Passing more laws will not keep them from breaking
them.
As always, we need to enforce the laws and
send CEOs to prison. Have them picking up trash on Wall Street in orange jump suits.

My point is that the easier the work-around/hack to let you do something, the more silly/infeasible/stupid a legal remedy becomes.

Driving drunk is ridiculously easy to do - no workaround needed at all. So laws banning it makes no sense then?

A law is a signal about what is and is not acceptable behavior. Just because breaking it is easy in a technical sense doesn't mean the law is sily or stupid. Quite the opposite - we don't need any laws banning things that are impossible to do anyway, after all.

Of course, whether caller-ID spoofing should be acceptable or not is a different question - but a question we, as a society resolve through debate, passed and revoked laws, and through the legal system, not on the basis of how easy it is to do.

>My point is that the easier the work-around/hack to let you do something, the more silly/infeasible/stupid a legal remedy becomes.

This is absurd. How easy it is to break a law is not a reason to create or not create that law. There are small towns where people leave the doors unlocked and cities where people put multiple locks on the doors. The same laws about breaking and entering exist in both places. It is extremely easy to push down on the gas pedal and go faster down the highway yet no one says that because it's easy to break the speed limit that speed limits should be abolished.

As it gets easy it is to do something dubious then the law/penalty beccomes the single factor restraining the activity.

Wow. Yes -- how easy or hard it is to enforce laws should factor into the lawmaking power -- creating laws that people agree do not promote the common good (or a reasonable person doesn't) REDUCES THE RESPECT FOR ALL LAWS. Remember prohibition in the US? Using analogies like drunk driving, breaking and entering is a fatuous exercise in extreme examples. Let's talk about things where the common good is not necessarily so apparent -- like if I want to listen to my music on my iPod. Laws that:

1 - Have weak or no linkage to the common good, and
2 - Are easily circumvented

hurt rather than help the rule of law.

As a red card-carrying member of your aforementioned rabble, I suggest even more laws be redacted and discussed ad nauseum. More for the ego anointed elite to mentally masterbate over as hoi polloi (usage of "the" beforehand is redundant, as hoi refers to the article "the" in greek) plan myschief and general skulduggery at the time of their choosing.

Imagine someone used this technology to contact someone using your phone number.

Imagine the person who did this was your boss using your personal phone number to bother a former employee of yours who was ducking calls from your boss.

Imagine your boss was a company executive so not only was one call not enough to press harassment charges but your company never took action to punish your boss because they don't know how he did it and don't really want to because their equipment may have been used.

This happened to me and a former employee of mine. It's not so innocuous a prank.