|Received:||3/23/2004 8:01:05 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
I think it is fair to say that the people that wrote and passed the CAN-SPAM Act have no real experience with the ins and outs of spam. They can't, or else they never would have passed such a loose and allowing law. As my company's administrator of our anti-spam program, allowing spammers to send mail to a recipient that has not "opted out" is ridiculous. No one has time to opt out of the, say, 500 spams I get a day. I do not have the time. It would also verify to the spammer that my email address is valid, and will then be sold to other spammers, which will get me nothing but more spam. Actual Spam is obvious-Viagra ads, weight loss patches, young girls with farm animals, you get the picture. I will not opt out of those emails. Ads from Microsoft or another recognized legitimate company are not the spam we are used to. It may be a pain to get an ad for a Microsoft conference in my local area, but I would feel safer opting out of one of those than the Paris Hilton sex video spam, or responding to the last cousin of the late Nigerian dictator. A differentation needs to be made between legitimate advertising and spam. They are not the same thing. The law needs to be changed or expanded.in regards to opting out. One suggestion I have to help is allowing the individual state and the federal laws to work together, and not allow the Federal law to supercede the state. CA anti-spam laws are much more stringent than the CAN-SPAM Act, and I think we should be able to excersise both laws. Now that the CAN-SPAM law is in effect, spammers have much more flexibility than they used to. Now they are all legitimate emailers unless we opt out. I have to say, the emails I have seen come through my filter have taken me by surprise. I certainly do not consider family incest sites and adding 3 inches to a member legitimate email advertisement. I do not think Congress should either.