比如标榜"专注于管理只是和行业资讯分享"的科技自媒体"秦羽思维"，不仅言之凿凿地说"三大运营商已根据美国FCC要求，整理技术报告和合 规材料，并计划通过第三方审计证明合规性"，而且还替三大运营商写出了"联合美国行业组织参与反骚扰溯源小组，争取认证豁免"的戏码。 比如所谓"科技评论员"的"黄海峰的通信生活"，不仅身临其境地描写"中国三大运营商迅速响应，紧急成立由技术、合规、法务人员组成的专项 组，启动应急处置机制"，而且还煞有其事地宣称"截至12月16日......认证材料准备工作推进至六成"。 这些打着通信业和科技圈内部人士旗号的网络自媒体，不仅没有秉着务实求真的科学精神对外界宣传真相，反而语不惊人死不休地编造出一系 列莫须有的情节来误导受众，危害性极大，因此需要对其进行逐一曝光和集中批驳，以正视听。 其一，所谓三大运营商迫于FCC压力进行"紧急整改"之类的说法纯属无知。 认真研读美国FCC针对三大运营商在港运营商实体公司的"合规令"内容，可以看到，这份"合规令"出台的背景包括如下时间节点： 2020年，FCC建立RMD机制，以促进透明度和有效的自动呼叫缓解。 文 |ICT解读者一老解 自FCC向国内三大运营 ...

Core Viewpoint - A recent case in Shanghai highlights the legal consequences of harassment from bank marketing practices, emphasizing the need for consumer protection and regulatory oversight [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Consumer Rights - The Civil Code of China prohibits organizations or individuals from disturbing others' private lives through unsolicited calls, messages, or other means without consent [1]. - The case serves as a warning to banks and similar enterprises, encouraging citizens to protect their rights through legal channels [1]. Group 2: Regulatory and Technological Measures - Regulatory bodies are urged to strengthen oversight of marketing practices, ensuring compliance and imposing penalties on companies that misuse user data or frequently disturb consumers [1][2]. - Telecom operators are encouraged to enhance smart interception technologies and maintain a blacklist of harassment numbers to reduce the spread of unwanted communications [2]. Group 3: Corporate Responsibility and Marketing Ethics - Companies relying on aggressive phone and SMS marketing may achieve short-term customer acquisition but risk damaging their brand image and consumer trust [2]. - Businesses are advised to adopt a customer-centric approach, focusing on understanding user needs and innovating services while respecting consumer preferences and rights [2].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling in Shanghai against a bank for harassment calls highlights the urgent need for effective management and enforcement against such illegal activities, emphasizing that relevant departments must take responsibility to protect citizens' rights [1][3][4]. Legal Framework - The Civil Code explicitly prohibits organizations or individuals from invading others' privacy through unsolicited communications without consent, and it protects personal information from illegal collection and use [1]. - The Criminal Law outlines penalties for selling or providing personal information, with severe consequences for serious violations, including imprisonment [2]. - The Public Security Administration Punishment Law also stipulates penalties for illegally obtaining personal information and disturbing social order [2]. Management and Enforcement Issues - Despite clear legal provisions, the prevalence of harassment calls suggests failures in management and enforcement, raising concerns about negligence and dereliction of duty among responsible departments [2][3]. - The court's decision serves as a wake-up call for relevant authorities to acknowledge their responsibilities and take action against harassment calls [3][4]. Call to Action - There is a pressing need for coordinated efforts among various departments to address the issue of harassment calls, including establishing clear goals and timelines for resolution [3]. - The court ruling is seen as a catalyst for change, urging authorities to proactively manage and eliminate harassment calls rather than relying on citizens to seek judicial remedies [4].