Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Finally somebody is trying to thwart the incesant amount of spam emails one receives in their inbox. However, it is imperative to our liberties that the correct "spam" is thwarted, as NOT all spam is bad. For example: receiving pornography, viruses, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th party solicitations that are of NO EXPRESSED INTEREST (etcetera) are TERRIBLE things. Conversely, receiving unsolicited offers for things that I would otherwise have NO exposure to and that are of interest to me such as business opportunities and ways to make an online income (and thereby stimulating the economy and my family's livelihood - the "American Dream"), save money, purchase items of interest, protect myself and loved ones (etcetera) are GREAT things. I am new to internet marketing and have yet to sell anything, but I am learning and paying for my own education at the same time. Placing heavy restrictions on legitimate and non "scum bag" emails is what I perceive as a crime in itself. Restrict the "scum bags" but please don't restrict the honest, ethical and moral marketers or marketers to be (like me) with ridiculous regulations that will back-fire on us all and end up costing the "little guy" what's left of his/her paltry monies. I have a rite to work my way out of this communistic government's ill devised "wage slave" (J.O.B. - Just Over Broke) market that continues to screw the little guy and favor the big guy. Your (the government's) focus should be more on drug trafficking (politicians included), political corruption, illegal immigration (such as the 50% Mexican illegals population in Salem, Oregon), terrorism, employment wages, and environmental health...not spam - come on. If you need to deal with spam, deal with the fat cats like yahoo, MSN and so on. Don't make the little guy "pay for it" yet again. There are so many problems and costs associated with your idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must compel you to consider this matter most carefully. For example: The requirement for the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. Additionaly, that B.S. about placing one's physical address in every email will jeopardize the very safety and sanctity of EVERY home based marketer (the majority of the net). That's just what "Mrs. Jones" needs...to have a wacko visit her own home because of a business related issue - or even worse - rape her! Moreover, many online marketers are renters and doing business that exposes their physical home address and thereby increasing commercially based foot traffic to their home is cause for eviction. You're openning a rotten can of worms here people. It is WE the people, not YOU the people. The net by nature has no physical address, but I do believe that a physical street address (such as a legitimate business mail address) that an operator leases, rents or owns would be okay. Your focus should be on a compact agreement between foreign nations (they're the biggest problem) and how THEY conduct business via the web. I was quite surprised and frankly pissed off at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of the aforementioned concerns. Respectfully Mr. Burgerman