|Received:||3/25/2004 9:22:29 PM|
|Organization:||Vogel Computer Services|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
Additional information on the definition of "transactional or relationship" messages: If any product or service other than one which I have already purchased is offered or mentioned, the message becomes commercial in nature to me. This is similar to the so-called "courtesy calls" which many companies use to solicit new business. These often come under the guise of "updating my information". If my information had changed , I would have notified the company of this; often these calls or messages are received only days apart. If I ask to be removed from a list, it takes weeks but they wish me to believe that they need to update my contact information after only a few days?! This is beyond reasonable and the same should apply to any contact method; nothing other than an invoice or a recurring bill should apply as dealing with to a transaction, in my opinion. Additional information on modifying the 10-business-day time period for processing opt-out requests: When dealing with an e-mail database, there is no reason requests should take more than 10 seconds. A computer can easily process these "on the fly" and purge my address from the database immediately. Anything less is not satisfactory to me. Additional information on identifying additional "aggravated violations": I feel strongly that new techniques will be found very quickly once the commonly used ones are made unavailable by law. I feel that a method should be in place to add these new techniques as they become used. Such techniques should be able to be added as unlawful in no more than 6 months. This is actually a long period of time when dealing with the Internet. This would likely require ongoing effort, but it is worth it. 2. If a consumer has “opted out” from receiving commercial email from a particular company, and then receives a subsequent commercial email containing an ad for this company as well as ads for three other companies, does this violate the Act? If so, who has committed the violation? Yes, the Act has been violated by both the company advertised and to whom the opt-out request was made as well as the party who initiated the email message, but who did not receive the opt-out request. The onus should be on the party who received the opt-out request to provide their opt-out list to any and all senders of such messages. Additional information regarding Information in a message’s "from" line: The from line should be explicit in from whom the message is sent and on whose behalf it is being sent. An example would be "Joe Spammer on behalf of Advertising Company". The Subject line should be required to start with "Paid Advertisement for <Insert name of product/service here> from <Insert company selling product or service>". Furthermore, anything of a sexually explicit nature should be required to be identified in the subject line as "Porn" or "XXX" or "Adults Only" or some similar single item in addition to the "Paid Advertisement" bit mentioned before. Only in this manner will the law be effective, in my opinion. This would drastically simplify any filtering necessary.