Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008

To the Commissioners,

We all want to do the right thing in regards to privacy issues. Please allow me to enlighten you about the Spam issues and I promise to open your eyes to potential trouble sources.

First, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem ofunsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned aboutthe proposed requirement that shifts the burden of responsibility away from the real responsible persons.

For example, to the degree that one is inquisitive on the internet, to that degree they are certainly exposing themselves to open communication from anyone. If they have a website that gives contact information, this is revealed on public display. This is the equivalent of handling human blood without gloves -- 100% exposure to possible infection.

I have talked to many internet inquirers who don't even realize that they are leaving a trail for the hounds to follow. They will certainly be caught in the web. If any law is passed for suppression, it should be worded in this fashion:[1] If you have filled out free offers, sweepstakes or posted your contact information on a website for public display or have otherwise indicated that you do wish to be contacted; then you have gone into the public markets with 100% exposure and have waived any protections under this law.[2] The only people afforded protection under this law are those who are not in the public market; are not soliciting business on the internet; have not displayed their information for public viewing and are strictly private users of the net.[3] People using free services [MSN, Yahoo, Juno, Net Zero and such like] have forfeited their rights to any protection under this law. They have exposed themselves and in so doing, they have forfeited their rights to protection under this law.[4] The only people protected by this law are those who are strictly private users of the internet and have not given or publicly displayed their contact information on the internet.

[5] Vendors and eCommerce entities should only be required to submit registration records or copies of correspondence that proves the complainers actually requested contact.

In view of the millions of internet users, the federal government is in no position to afford miniscule levels of protection to everybody. There is too much proof in evidence that many people who complain of Spam are creating their own problems. They do such things as joining the RYZE groups, chat groups, discussion groups, safelists, ffapages and they otherwise fail to protect their personal information. In other words, public people cannot invoke rights of privacy to the extent that they have exposed themselves in the public view.

It is not in the interest of the People of the United States to underwrite the bill to police the internet to the extent that many people desire. This would create an entire new, but needless, industry and allocate the capital of the people to a wasteful expedition. Therefore, the governing body -- the US Congress -- hereby declines to extensively police the internet because our limited funds must be used to help people truly in need.

[end suggested copy]

I have demonstrated the side of the issue that few people have bothered to mention. Having spent thousands of hours on the internet and conversant with many people and their issues; I find that the Spam problem is largely self-induced and that any money spent to correct this issue should be spent to educate people on the proper and secure use of the internet.

Moreover, I have participated in exchange programs where people obtain a free benefit for the promise of allowing us to send them our messages. You would be surprised at the people who quickly and easily forget to honor their commitment and cry "SPAM!" when they are not entitled to make this complaint.Thanks