| Comment Number: | OL-104374 |
| Received: | 4/16/2004 6:40:43 PM |
| Organization: | johnston enterprises |
| Commenter: | A. Johnston |
| State: | MI |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | CAN-SPAM ANPR |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. Furthermore, why should the legitament web businesses ahve to pay so highly for the illegal activities of person who cannot be regulated by the this organization that come from the former soviet block nations and china and it's surrounding areas? They shouldn't- More on this subject- If a person is receiving spam- they should do there best to opt-out- which is great- But- if the person is not able to opt-out- why should thier word be held so high-? The plain fact is if they cannot click on the opt-out button because of some force unknown- why should legitimate business be held responsible.?I must admit that I have had a few aggrevating spams- but with the right resources- one can stop these anoying unwanted emails- I deplore the commission to look into making every single Web domain- be required to provide a actual physical person that is liable for thier activities- so that one can find the origin of thier spam easilyh by going to the who-its database- and punching in the web address- Please understand- we all are able to right click and delete unwanted emails- if we do not recognised the sender- why should web businesses suffer- because people have no control to delete messeges that are supposively unwanted- but - the malicuiously read the emails anyways- to find out what is in there- thier curisousity got the best of the them? Respectfully, A. Johnston Michigan USA