| Comment Number: | 516736-00012 |
| Received: | 5/19/2005 2:28:43 PM |
| Organization: | SpamBlocked.com |
| Commenter: | Richard Tietjens |
| State: | OR |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act |
| Docket ID: | 3084-AA96 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
The CAN-SPAM Act does not address the issue which is the root of the "spam" problem; that is, that unsolicited bulk email constitutes theft by conversion and trespass to chattel, stealing from ISPs in order to fund the advertising campaigns of the spammers. <p> Requiring recipients of spam to take *any* action to be removed from mailing lists to which they have not voluntarily subscribed creates a condition of mandated unpaid, non-volunteer labor in order to cause an abuser to cease abusing his victim. This is clearly a violation of Amendment XIII to the Constitution of the United States, forcing labor upon a citizen without compensation and without due process. It is furthermore an abrogation of the duties of the Congress and Senate of the United States, to require such labor on behalf of spammers. <p> Since it is abundantly clear that neither the Congress nor Senate have any intention of executing their duties in this regard, the next best possibility is to require spammers to maintain an email address for the purpose of receiving "unsubscribe" requests; which address *must* be used as the "reply-to" address in any unsolicited bulk email; and furthermore, require spammers to accept and process such email immediately upon delivery to the "unsubscribe" address, with a maximum permissible delay of one hour; such delay, however, should not permit sending of any further unsolicited bulk email to any recipient who has already submitted a "removal request." This is not an onerous requirement; the spammers have automated their abuse, and it is trivial to automate the cessation of abuse likewise. Failure to comply with either of these requirements should be a felony crime, as the spammers are stealing upwards of US$11 billion annually through their spamming. That's felony grand theft in every jurisdiction. <p> However, the law must also "hold harmless" any ISP which terminates any account used for spamming or receiving response from spamming, in any way, including but not limited to domain registration, DNS services, email services, and Web hosting. It is (or should be) up to the spammer to maintain the necessary and required infrastructure for compliance with the law.