Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 ~ To the Commissioners, ~ I am pleased that you are making an effort to do something about the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, your actions would be much more effective toward your goal and far less damaging to legitimate online businesses if you would work – at length – with owners of these businesses. I know that it is not your intention to do harm to these people, but that is exactly what will happen with this Act. Not only that, but, as only honest advertisers and merchants will attempt to comply with these regulations, the “spam” that you are trying to eliminate will continue to proliferate in spite of your best efforts. ~ The suppression lists described in this Act are dangerous to both consumers and true "opt-in" publishers. There are many reasons that I know this to be so, and I would like to discuss some of them herein. ~ Of the myriad reasons to send an unsubscribe request, that of not wishing to hear about a specific product is one of the least-often intended. Once on a wholesale suppression list, an individual no longer has the ability to hear about new products. This harms both the advertiser and the consumer, and does nothing to further the objectives of the Act. ~ Further, because it is common for people to read their email in batches, and therefore potentially read several issues at once, a publisher has no way of knowing which advertisement the person was reading when the decision to send the unsubscribe request was made. ~ The undeniable fact that most people have multiple email addresses is another problem that will wreak havoc with these lists. A publisher may remove an email address in response to an unsubscribe request, but that person making the request may well have another email address listed with that publisher. If the publisher continues to send email to the other address(es), as requested by "opt-in", the person may think that he/she has reason to file suit according to the Act. This would be an incorrect assumption, but the costs incurred by the publisher in having to defend the suit would do damage to the business, possibly even enough damage to shut it down entirely. ~ There is also the issue of forgery for the purposes of harming competition. Email addresses are easily harvested from topic-specific forums and web sites, and a simple software program could – in just a matter of hours – devastate large parts of their competitions’ market by sending false unsubscribe requests. ~ Another danger that publishers will face will be the size of these suppression lists: larger merchants mean more, and possibly better, products, but they also mean larger lists. Small- to medium-sized publishers will not be able to maintain these lists. They will be forced out of business, either by the costs of trying to comply with the Act, or with damages incurred by lawsuits brought against them when their best efforts to keep up with these lists fail. ~ Probably the most frightening scenario of all, and one that is all-too possible, is having these suppression lists fall into the hands of the very people you are trying to regulate: the “spammers”. By creating these lists, you are giving them ready-made mailing lists to use for their malicious purposes. Once stolen from legitimate business owners, these lists will not only be used by the thieves, but they will also be sold for profit and used again and again. ~ These are only some of the objections that I have to the use of these suppression lists. They are not listed in order of importance, nor are those that I have omitted of any less importance than those written above. ~ It is because of all of these potential hazards that I appeal to the Commission to exempt lists which are conducted by using the principle of affirmative consent (“opt-in” lists) from any possible regulations requiring the use of suppression lists. ~ Respectfully, ~ Kent Hackett ~ Oklahoma, USA