|Received:||3/21/2004 7:34:51 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
General comments regarding the CAN-SPAM Act: Much of the difficulty in implementing this act could be avoided by adopting a more conservative perspective on marketing than that which has been thrust upon consumers in recent years. I believe that I speak for a majority of consumers in stating that the notion of implied consent is ethically defective. I personally find it offensive that anyone assume to know my wishes or intent. At best, spam is sent based on information harvested against my desires. If I desire to receive commercial email, there is ample opportunity to "opt-in," and indeed I do subscribe to a number of newsletters, "transactional and relationship messages," etc. which often contain a limited amount of advertising. I do not object to this. I do object to the 100 (on average) unsolicited emails per day that fill my "in box." Efforts to "unsubscribe" often only result in more spam from "spoofed" addresses. Regardless of how the act is worded, I believe enforcement should be based on the beneficiaries of the advertisements - the marketers referenced in the email. What difference does it make if there is one marketer or 20? If one advertiser is not in compliance, the entire message is non-compliant - in a just society this would be obvious.