| Comment Number: | OL-100057 |
| Received: | 8/29/2004 12:16:53 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Don Dickert |
| State: | MN |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act (NPRM) |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
The definition of SPAM should be: Any form of e-mail sent by anyone that the user did not expressly give their address to. This means that third-party organizations would not be allowed to sell your address without your expressed, written authorization. As a Realtor, my marketing use of the US Postal Service is limited by decorum and the associated costs. Just because marketing by e-mail is virtually free doesn't mean that decorum should be thrown out the window. I do not use broadcast e-mail solicitations as part of my business, because it wold be counterproductive to irritate the very people that I want as clients. If a person were to desire any of the medications, enhancements, pornography or get-rich-quick schemes sent via e-mail, then that person should have the ability and right to search the web for those things. However, I should also have the right NOT to be bombarded with any of that stuff. Another angle to look at SPAM may be to realize that the bandwidth of the web is finite and clogging it with SPAM could be considered sabatoge, just the same as viruses. So, if a country does not go along with some control of SPAM, they should have their web access limited in some fashion. Thanks