|Received:||3/23/2004 3:08:22 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
A.1/B.3 In order to remove the confusion on "primary purpose" please require that all emails are single subject - eg a account summary/bill can not also include promotions. They must be separate. This would allow for easier enforcement and remove confusion. A.3. Are there other ways to determine whether a commercial advertisement or promotion in an email is the primary purpose of the email? If there is a way for them to make money/close a deal. For example click here to order; call to learn more (...and purchase...); etc. B.2 The use of ICQ, IM and text messaging via phone and blackberry has increased the source of UCE. I still have not been able to make ATT stop sending my phone text messages wanting to sell me stuff! C.1 There is no reason to take this long. After all a human is not processing the lists.... D.1 Effective DOS due to broken mailers. Also, 5b4 is too restrictive. Much spam now comes from zombied resedential machines which would not be considered a "protected computer." Additional sources are exploits of formmail scripts, spim to IM and text messaging to blackberries and phones D.2 The use of ICQ, IM and text messaging via phone and blackberry has increased the source of UCE. E.1.2 All are responsible. This makes companies more careful on who they partner with rather than allowing them to hide behind the thin veil "we didn't know they were doing that" E.1.1/E.2.3 Social engineering is just another way to get out of being responsible. The marketter should not be absolved from culpability. E.2.4 The owner of the list AND and emailler if different E.2.6 Assuming they promoted "send to a friend" E.3.1 Only if it is the corporation or individual's legal address. The legal address I think is they key but no "mail drops" F.1.1 This would not work. It works with some phone based telemarketting firms because of their infrastructure needs (I might add that this may change with the movement to VOIP). A spammer would never use this nor would one person mass mailer. Further, if you supply the list to someone to "clean" its list what stops they from copying all those emails and how are you going to secure it? If its hacked is the government liable? F.1.2 Abolutely needed. Also the ability for me to use smapple claims couts would help as well. F.1.3 CAN-SPAM will not be effective because noone is tasked nor funded to go after spammers. Heck there is noone in the Federal government who even wants it reported to them and the FTC ube email address is not used actively to identify nor prosecue spammers. In fact, since CAN-SPAM we have received even more spam that previously. If noone is tasked & funded to accept complaints and evidence and identified to arrest and prosecute CAN-SPAM will be as effective in stopping spam as the junk fax legislation in stopping and prosecuting junk fax guys - I have forwarded a ton of junk faxes to the SEC and FCC and been told that there is nothing they can do. CAN-SPAM is a joke but maybe it will give me some clout for stopping legit newsletters that don't want to update their removals. F.1.3 It will help me and our users to send it directly to the trashbin but it will not help in the key problem which is that the increases in UCE is impacting our infrastructure and costs. They are using up our storage, bandwidth, and CPU power without compensation.