Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners, First and foremost, I respect and appreciate your efforts to reduce spam, both as a business person, and as a consumer. However, I must say that the possibility of the CAN-SPAM Act passing is extremely alarming, as this will only increase consumers' risk of spam, rather than reducing it. Consumers may become afraid of any e-mail subscription, even a mutually beneficial one, due to the threat of their information being misused. On a business level, the business for which I work, a hotel, does not rely heavily on email marketing, but rather we have a small family of subscribers. But these subscribers are previous and/or potential guests that have entrusted us with their information because they are interested in what we have to offer. The CAN-SPAM act would prove detrimental, not only to our business, but possibly the entire community. The reason of this is that most travelers that come here do not come simply for a hotel stay, but for a multi-faceted experience, which many times includes the area attractions. By releasing their private information, for which they did not give permission, we violate their trust, which can cause good reason for doubt of our reliability, honesty, etc. This not only affects our personal relationship with guests, but financial status as well. And not only for our business, and definitely not on any small scale. If a guest is turned off from staying here, or somewhere else in this community, they not only take their dollars away from the hotel(s), but also from the entire area, the tourist community, the tourism industry. This is already a huge money-making industry, and always growing, and not only in our community, but in the entire world. To bring about an act that could threaten this industry, among others, in such a large way, seems unreasonable. On the other side, as a consumer, wife, and mother, I am also fearful of this act passing. My family has already fallen prey only 2 months ago to a, now national, "scam", where private information was sold to an "affilitate" partner, even to include our bank account information. With this information in the wrong hands, this resulted in unlawful, and financially harmful, transactions on our account. Upon research from our bank, we found out that our private information, such as the type that will be released if the CAN-SPAM act is passed, was indeed sold from this "affilliate partner". And soon, this could no longer be dubbed a scam that is deeming police investigation such as this particular one, but could be a legal act? I realize that each case will not always be this extreme, but the CAN-SPAM Act will make this scenario a larger possibility for more people. More people will be at risk. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and as someone who has already experienced a taste of what this could bring, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation.Respectfully,Elizabeth McCrackenNewport News, Virginia, USA