|Received:||3/20/2004 3:08:30 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
My answers to these "prescribed" questions may not make sense because I do not understand all of your phraseology. It seems simpler to me than your bureaucratic language makes it. Outlaw unsolicited e-mail messages that broadly advertise commercial products. Outlaw unsolicited body part enlargement ads, unsolicited mortgage financing and refinancing ads, pornographic ads and the like without specific opt-ins by the consumer. Outlaw the practice of multiple opt-ins in one e-mail. If the consumer wants the ads, let them have them by opting in but outlaw the practice of filling up peoples e-mail in-boxes unless they have asked for the e-mails. It's that simple, isn't it? Allow the practice of one-time e-mails asking if the customer wants to opt in to receive certain specific ads WITHOUT describing in detail the product(s). The absence of an opt-in would prohibit the ads and and opt-in would include the right to opt-out at any future date. No grapics should be allowed in these ads and the language that can be used in the one-time e-mails should be severely limited. Although the advertisers will scream loudly and declare that their rights are being violated, I would even favor the government prescribing (rather than proscribing) the language that can be used in these first-time e-mails. If it gets right down to whose rights should be respected more, I favor those of the recipients of the e-mails whose rights of privacy have been violated (and continue to be so) by these advertisers. And I hold a degree in marketing and own my own business that has a web site and sells professional products.