| Comment Number: | 516736-00023 |
| Received: | 5/24/2005 5:43:38 PM |
| Organization: | Speakeasy, Inc |
| Commenter: | David Dennis |
| State: | WA |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act |
| Docket ID: | 3084-AA96 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear FTC, Thank you for considering a tightening of the rules governing spam. It was a great disappointment when the Federal Government stepped in and overruled many states, Washington State included, who already had tougher spam laws on the books. Hopefully his revision will be the beginning of a trend towards making spam more easily prosecuted and enforced, and making it recognized as the bane to internet commerce that it currently is. I believe that the federal government, having taken over the legal definition of spam from the states, needs to provide a better service than it has already. The CAN - SPAM statute has been derisively called the U-CAN-SPAM law by some. I fully support every revision to the law, and would argue that the law, even with the revisions, has a long way to go before Washington State residents will again enjoy the protections under law that we enjoyed prior to the federal superceding of spam law by CAN-SPAM. One addition to the law I would like to see is the 'established business relationship' be better identified, and the distinction between marketing mail and relationship maintenance mail be made sharper. Currently marketers can blur the lines by including ads or other unwanted offers in regular bills or technical announcements. It should be required for marketers to never mail any promotional material if the customer requests it once, period. Kind regards, Dave Dennis Seattle, WA